|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 06:57 PM EDT |
I missed the point of your question and it's a good one. IANAL, but I think it
was that Novell would have to demonstrate that there was a monopoly that
Microsoft either created or was maintaining by their actions. Otherwise, I
suspect they could do it legally (if unfairly). There was no question that
Microsoft had an OS monopoly in the time-frame relevant to Novell's case. Novell
is using the middleware argument to tie the case to that monopoly.
Perhaps Novell didn't want to have to show that Microsoft created a monopoly in
the application space by what they did to Novell? Even if they could have,
perhaps it is easier tying the case to the existing OS monopoly? Perhaps the
timing of the sale or the nature of the APA would make it more difficult to
point to the MS Office monopoly or limit Novell's standing to sue if they did?
Obviously, this is just guessing. Novell's lawyers must have had a reason,
though.
BTW, notice how the judge was very much in agreement that what Microsoft did was
wrong, even though he forgot the specifics of Novell's accusation. So, yes, you
apparently can abuse your monopoly position legally. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- I found it! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 09:20 PM EDT
|
|
|
|