|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 11:32 PM EDT |
The article seemed to imply that this would be new information to Judge Motz.
Come to think of it, he probably already knows much of this. That would help
explain why he doesn't seem to like Novell's lawsuit.
He did seem to be fully aware that Microsoft routinely didn't share many of its
APIs. Novell was aware that they didn't before they bought WordPerfect. The fact
that Microsoft does it should be reflected in the price Novell had to pay for
WordPerfect. If they weren't prepared to deal with the situation, they shouldn't
have bought WordPerfect and made it Novell's problem.
Novell's case goes beyond not sharing APIs to include deception. Given the
(alleged) fake interest in purchasing Novell (just to keep Novell from
developing DR-DOS), how deceived should Novell have been with respect to the
namespace APIs? (Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I'm
thinking it's probably more than twice, BTW.) Of course Frankenburg would have
at least been told about Novell being duped if he didn't already know about it,
so that would explain why Judge Motz was "flabbergasted" that
Frankenburg wasn't involved in any contingency planning for Microsoft not
behaving in the way Novell had hoped.
There are probably quite a few things about Motz's attitude toward Novell that
might be explained by this. I'm too tired to think of them, ATM.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
