decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
NSA Built Stuxnet, but Real Trick Is Building Crew of Hackers | 227 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:03 PM EDT
Please post any needed correction here.
We try to be faithful to the court records, so if there
appears to be any error in transcript, please check
against the PDFs before suggesting a correction.

Thnx -> Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks
Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:38 PM EDT
Please make links clickable

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic
Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:39 PM EDT
Please make links clickable

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

NSA Built Stuxnet, but Real Trick Is Building Crew of Hackers
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:39 PM EDT
I can relate to this article. I work for RIT and am the advisor for SPARSA
(sparsa.org), one of the oldest and longest running student led security groups
at any university. When we first organized, we didn't even have a security
program. There is a lot of angst at the university about teaching
"hacking". In fact, we have a contest call the "Information
Security Talent Show" and were forbidden from using the word hacking in the
title. Part of the problem is the fear of liability. There is also, for some
reason, a real disdain for anyone doing "hacking" that seems to come
from the industry. Its funny because many of the hackers who made names for
themselves now work for companies who advertise "We Don't Hire
Hackers!". Unfortunately the faculty are largely in denial about the set
of skills our students need when they leave here. Many have graduated without a
solid understanding of basic tools like nmap or wireshark. Things are getting
better, but change is slow. The university has recently pledged to make
security a higher priority program. Hopefully it will develop beyond its
current form.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes transcribing
Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:41 PM EDT
Please post transcribed text/html here (in plain text)
Thank you for your support

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Was Judge Motz struck by lightning?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 12:39 AM EDT

That's one possible explanation of his severe and debilitating memory problems... I mean, seriously, not remembering his own ruling?!?

I suppose that there could be other organic brain problems that might explain it, too, which would be quite sad to see. These kinds of problems do tend to crop up with age, and should be addressed quickly by the Federal Courts, lest the people lose confidence in their judges' abilities to render justice.

Other options do exist to explain this erratic behavior... uglier ones that involve choice and baser human nature. I, for one, hope it's one of the former possibilities. I also hope that it gets addressed, regardless of the cause.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell v Microsoft Trial
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT
The focus of this trial has always puzzled me, because it is tied to the O/S
market and the idea of middleware, not about Microsoft trying to leverage and
extend their monopoly into applications.

Isn't that also illegal?

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

His excuses
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 03:51 PM EDT
I quoted large chunks so you will understand why I'm so puzzled that he's waking up nights wondering what the case is about, and if he is, why doesn't he go back and reread his own opinion?
Yes, it seems strange. Just trying to think of what excuses there might be... He is on the road, operating out of a temporary office. Some people don't do that well. He seemed very confused about what resources he had available to him. That's not much of an excuse since it was his decision to do that. He didn't seem to realize that he was misremembering things and didn't know what it was that he didn't know. The previous week he seemed to be insisting that he understood Novell's theory. What he thought he didn't understand then is how Novell was going to offer any evidence to support it (the wrong theory). Going back to read what he wrote earlier might not have occurred to him, because he originally decided that the suit wasn't timely and Novell lacked standing to sue. That didn't bear on what he thought the problem was this time. What's really worrying is how he didn't seem to give Novell's lawyers time to walk him through things. It seems like he should have run long or stopped testimony 1/2 hour early if necessary to allow for that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Part of the foundation strengthened. More footings to do
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, June 14 2012 @ 05:02 AM EDT
MR. JOHNSON: That was deception. That was anticompetitive. That was -- and had they, had they, Your Honor, simply denied the extensible shell to all ISVs, that would have been wrong according to Microsoft's own executives with respect to this point, but it might have fallen within what you said, the lack of duty of a monopolist.
Novell are doing a poor job explaining their case. They keep raising the key points, but don't explain why they are key, to the judge.

As Mr. Johnson says, keeping the NameSpace extension APIs from competitors and using them for Microsoft Office is anti-competitive for applications running on Windows. However, that has been dealt with in another case. Mr. Johnson needs to explain why the deception is only partly to do with application competition and partly to do with middleware. Novell did not need the NameSpace extensions because they were able to use alternate technologies on both Windows 95 and other windowed OSs. Promising WordPerfect access to the NameSpace extension APIs and then withdrawing them meant that Novell had to start developing the alternative much later and therefore Microsoft Office could capture the market with their own middleware environment.

Once customers were committed to Microsoft middleware that only ran on Windows and Apple's OS, there was no chance of them choosing WP on both Windows and other competing OSs.

Withholding the NameSpace extension APIs was key to the previous case. The deception is key to the middleware argument in that it prevented the takeup of the Windows 95 competitive WP middleware.

Novell seem to think that the judge will see this, immediately. That the judge forgot his previous findings and even his succinct repeat of the issues just a day before means that Novell need to be explicit.

Novell also needs to demonstrate senior management commitment to the WP middleware support of other OS platforms, otherwise there is no middleware competition with Windows 95. As it is, they are pounding away on proving the deception, but they are not showing that the deception reduced competition with Windows by other windowing operating systems that would also run WP.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )