|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 01:33 PM EDT |
So they can be fixed
---
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
,
... why doesn't Novell delineate this ignorance, and also bias, as shown on this
day, in a motion to the Judge, respectfully, asking him to recuse himself.
[Snort over curled lip.]
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maroberts on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
Post newspick link if this is a fresh thread about a
particular newspick, please[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 02:22 PM EDT |
I know that in elections you can spot when they've been
faked. I wonder if there's some statistical analysis that
could show improbability. The problem I imagine would be that
there's only one Judge, and you expect him to make up his
mind. But maybe there's something like the number of times
errors are made in favour of one party or another. Or the
number of questions asked of each party as compared to the
same judge in other cases. Just wondering because it's not
enough that justice is done, it has to be seen to be done,
and it has to be seen to be fair to both parties.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 02:46 PM EDT |
He has held on to this case when logic suggests he should have recused himself
after his reversal on appeal. He then subjected himself to a cross country
commute to handle the trial. All the while he seems determined to reverse his
reversal even to the point of reportedly making comments about the appeals court
which seem somewhat out of character for a Federal Judge.
---
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cpeterson on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
PJ, you probably remember the time you wondered if my report was 'even half
accurate'.
That was the mid-trial hearing on Microsoft's Rule 50
motion, and by your description, I think Mr. Johnson is experiencing flashbacks
to that hearing as well.
We don't seem to have made any progress over the
intervening months. The facts are still lined up just beyond the well-defended
confines of Judge Motz's skull, and they can't gain admittance. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Report quality - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT
- Groundhog Day - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 05:33 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 05:23 PM EDT |
In building our homegrown basic, we borrowed bits and pieces of our
design from previous versions, a long-standing software tradition. Languages
evolve; ideas blend together; in computer technology, we all stand on others’
shoulders.
did Paul Allen really say that???
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/05/paul-allen-201105[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cassini2006 on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
I remember when this was occurring. Microsoft actually made a commitment to
update the Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC) at least once every two years.
Every MFC release, the appearance of the user programs would change and be
improved. This caused two major user interface problems for every application
writer in Microsoft's ecosystem.
The first user interface problem was: code
generated from non-Microsoft compilers appeared dated.
Back in the days of DOS,
people liked using the Borland C++ compiler. It compiled code very quickly.
Microsoft eliminated Borland's compiler dominance when it wrote Visual C++ and
then constantly updated the APIs. The user interface of any programs generated
by the Borland compiler looked stale and old.
The second user interface
problem was: Microsoft didn't even use the MFC API to write Office. Computer
users would compare your program to Microsoft's Office, and wonder why they
looked different. This was back in the day where Microsoft was still trying to
encourage everyone to have a "Consistent Look and Feel."
The end result was
that only certain select partners (AutoDesk, Adobe) could write programs that
could keep up with Microsoft's changing tastes. They had to use Microsoft's
Visual C++ and the latest MFC APIs to do this.
All the smaller market players
were left developing programs that lagged behind current trends. This was okay
for the video game industry (which consistently ignores the Windows UI
guidelines). For the business market, you either were a small player, a player
that Microsoft would not compete against, or one of the many losers (Stac,
Borland, Corel, Novell, Ashton-Tate, Watcom, Sybase, etc.).
Microsoft has
destroyed their own ecosystem. I honestly can't imagine designing a significant
application for MS-Windows. Microsoft changes the user interface every two
years, making it very difficult to keep up. It would be much better to invest
in Web development or Apple App development, where one of the competitive
threats was not an unstable operating system "partner".
Many developers saw
this and reacted. They switched to web development. The day Bill Gates feared
has arrived: Windows is increasingly irrelevant. Apple iPhones and iPads,
Google Android devices, Linux machines, and Macs outsell Windows PCs. The
Microsoft PC is no longer ubiquitous.
If someone could make real-time 3-D
experiences work over a web-browser, in a manner close to the speed of native
hardware, then it will be a clear sign of the end of Microsoft's monopoly. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
If, as seems likely, this judge decides to rule "Microsoft wins"...
What is Novell able to do about it? Can they appeal again?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 06:31 PM EDT |
It is just so depressing that corrupt judges like this are given the power that
they have. Does he have no shame?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
Nobody likes Microsoft unless they're getting paid for that.
And the more I read about this judge, the more it looks like the Justice
Department needs to investigate him for the corruption. I'm not saying this is
certainly the case, but the facts about it look very suspicious and definitely
worth being checked out.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 07:54 PM EDT |
Quote:
And I insist on trying to show respect to judges, so I
have stop before I find that impossible.
The language--
word choice, phrases, etc-- we use has been shown to affect how we think, even
as how we think determines the language we use. For this reason, I am
somewhat... uptight... about appropriate word usage, for example not conflating
"law" with "justice," or "respect" with "courtesy" or "deference."
I
believe that respect is a positive mental and emotional state, that respect
should be earned, and that respect can be lost if the subject's actions are
sufficiently disappointing. I can respect a person I've only just met or heard
of, for example based on the qualifications needed for the position they hold--
in effect, they have earned my respect by attaining their position-- but the
actions of the person can negate the respect they might have 'inherited' from
such a position.
In the absence of respect, I am not wont to be
disrespectful; I may choose to be courteous, or to act out of deference for the
position the no-longer-respected person holds. Outwardly there may appear to be
little or no difference in my behavior.
Quote:
The rule of
law depends on respect, and that applies to me too.
I
disagree. The rule of law depends on many things, such as the rational
consideration that failing to maintain the rule of law ultimately leads to an
untenable social state (f.i. anarchy) and simple fear of the direct consequences
of breaking the law (f.i. prison), but respect is not necessarily one of
them.
The law is not an inherently good or bad thing. Most laws (in
Western societies, anyway) are intended to ensure the safety and well-being of
all members of society, but some laws exist now, have existed in the past, and
no doubt will be brought into existence in the future, that have not only
allowed people who would otherwise have been convicted of their crimes to be set
free, but also allow some to act maliciously against individuals or society with
legal impunity, or to cause otherwise law-abiding citizens to be harmed by
society and/or the bureaucracy that maintains it.
For my own well-being,
as well as for the betterment of society, I have deference for the law and the
people and institutions charged with maintaining it, but I do not respect
it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
PJ: Why, though, I can't help but ask, if the judge knows so little about
Microsoft's antitrust activities...
As dio gratia pointed out (in a reply near the top) Judge Motz was involved in
several anti-trust trials involving Microsoft. He didn't seem to favor
Microsoft. For example, on December 23, 2002 he ordered Microsoft to distribute
Sun's version of Java, but that was overturned by the appeals court.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/111351/microsoft_can_avoid_carrying_suns_java.htm
l
Based on his experience, he probably thought that he knew more than anyone.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 06:57 AM EDT |
as far as I can recall, all twelve agreed that Microsoft was guilty, but there
was one hold out on the amount of damages... why are we having this still
dragging on in front of the original biased judge anyway?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
Quattro Pro was not a necessary component of the WordPerfect middleware platform
and was bought-in after WordPerfect had created the middleware platform. It was
intended to make the platform a more compelling proposition. Gary Gibb gave
compelling evidence that WordPerfect and Novell were expending considerable
development resources to make WP cross-platform on other 32bit OSs.
The judge
seemed to think that Novell could only prevail if they were reproducing the APIs
in question on other platforms. This is what the State of New York v. Microsoft
found after Judge Penfold's decision to break Microsoft up had been
overturned.
The district and appellate courts
accepted Plaintiffs’
theory of competition despite the fact that “neither Navigator, Java, nor
any
other middleware product could [at that time], or would soon, expose enough
APIs to serve as a
platform for popular applications.”
Four-Part Test
for Liability
Having concluded that the district court properly
identified the relevant market as the
market for Intel-compatible PC operating
systems and properly excluded middleware products
from that market, the
appellate court turned its attention to the issue of whether Microsoft
responded
to the threat posed by middleware in violation of § 2 of the Sherman
Act.
Specifically, the appellate court set out to determine whether
Microsoft “maintain[ed], or
attempt[ed] to . . . maintain, a monopoly by
engaging in exclusionary conduct.”. The appellate court recounted that the
district court answered that inquiry in the affirmative, finding Microsoft
liable for violating § 2 of the Sherman Act:
by engaging in a variety
of exclusionary acts . . . [s]pecifically . . . and (4)
its course of conduct as
a whole.
In order to review the district court’s findings on this point,
the appellate court outlined a
four-part test for determining whether particular
conduct can be said to violate antitrust law.
“First, to be condemned
as exclusionary, a monopolist’s act must have an ‘anticompetitive
effect.’ That
is, it must harm the competitive process and thereby harm consumers.” (emphasis
in original).
Second, the plaintiff must “demonstrate that the
monopolist’s conduct
harmed competition, not just a competitor.”
Third,
“the monopolist may proffer a
‘procompetitive justification’ for its conduct.”.
If this justification stands unrebutted by the
plaintiff, the monopolist may
escape liability. Therefore, the fourth prong of the inquiry requires
that the
plaintiff “demonstrate that the anticompetitive harm of the conduct outweighs
the
procompetitive benefit.” The appellate court stressed that, although
evidence of intent is
relevant “to understand the likely effect of the
monopolist’s conduct,” when assessing the
balance between the anticompetitive
harm and the procompetitive effect, the trial court should
focus on the “effect
of [the exclusionary] conduct, not the intent behind it.”
So,
Microsoft's stated aim of attacking middleware to protect the Windows operating
system is not sufficient of itself. However, Novell gave evidence that the
deceit left WP delayed compared with MS Office and provided a proven effect of
excluding the WP middleware. ---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
