|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:31 PM EDT |
...there is no doubt in my mind,
after transcribing all the
Comes v. Microsoft
exhibits, that Microsoft messed with
them.
Of course they did. Novell's sole remaining claim doesn't
hinge on that, though. To win, Novell must prove other things that are far more
difficult.
Notice how there was no resistance from Motz to the idea that
Microsoft illegally monopolized the applications market: Although
Novell presented evidence from which a jury could have found that Microsoft
engaged in aggressive conduct, perhaps to monopolize or attempt to monopolize
the applications market... The problem is that Novell's remaining
claim isn't about that.
...so where do you get off with the
idea
that Novell was a loser here? Really am
curious.
Novell's case
against Microsoft was gutted because they filed too late to pursue those claims
where they could win by proving little more than the fact that Microsoft "messed
with them," as you put it. Had they filed on time, they obviously deserved to
win. (To me, what is unfair is that, because Novell didn't almost suicidally
fight back against Microsoft in the courts quickly enough, Microsoft may be able
to get away with what they did to Novell.) As it is, Motz did dismiss
what's left of Novell's case, so, pending appeal, Novell lost. If you meant
anything beyond what I just explained, I don't understand what you are
asking.But if, by any chance, you are connected in any
way to either
of the parties, you have to tell
openly to comment. This is Groklaw, where
we
don't pretend. I am not and never have been.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|