Custom bet limits at crypto casinos help players control spending while enjoying their favorite games.

Microsoft Litigation

Please note that this is not a complete list, and if you have other cases you’d like to have included, please let us know. You can click on the email icon to email PJ. Thank you.

[ EU Commission Antitrust ] [ US v. Microsoft (Antitrust) ] [ Caldera v. Microsoft ] [ Comes v. Microsoft ] [ Gordon v. Microsoft ] [ Novell v. Microsoft ] [ Alphabetical  List ] [ Legal Research ] [ Miscellaneous ] [ Topics ]

EU Commission Antitrust
[ back to top ]

  • Form for the public to report violations (literally “Information on Competition Problems affecting Consumers” which goes to the Consumer Liaison Office

  • Opera’s Complaint (& OOXML Interoperability)
    • 2009 browser tying case – Jan. 17, 2009, press release “Commission confirms sending a Statement of Objections to Microsoft on the tying of Internet Explorer to Windows”
    • Press Release announcing 2 new investigations, Jan. 14, 2008, one on browser tying, brought initially by Opera, and the second, brought by ECIS, on Office interoperability: “In the complaint by ECIS, Microsoft is alleged to have illegally refused to disclose interoperability information across a broad range of products, including information related to its Office suite, a number of its server products, and also in relation to the so called .NET Framework. The Commission’s examination will therefore focus on all these areas, including the question whether Microsoft’s new file format Office Open XML, as implemented in Office, is sufficiently interoperable with competitors’ products.”
    • EU Commission initiates investigation on tying, December 2007

  • Microsoft v. Commission of the European Communities (“Microsoft v. Commission”), Case T-201/04

Caldera v. Microsoft (antitrust)
[ back to top ]

Comes v. Microsoft (Iowa antitrust class action)
[ back to top ]

  • Transcripts from the trial
  • Exhibits (not yet completed)
  • Bill Gates video – deposition from the US antitrust litigation, presented to the jury in Comes v. Microsoft. Also available as audio. Also transcripts. (All Comes materials were downloaded from www.iowaconsumercase.org, before the site was removed when the settlement was reached.)

Gordon v. Microsoft (Minnesota antitrust)
[ back to top ]

Novell v. Microsoft (antitrust)
[ back to top ]

Alphabetical List
[ back to top ]

  • Alacritech Inc. v. Microsoft
  • Amado v. Microsoft
    • Patent infringement.   Filed March 2003; Decision June 2005.
    • Microsoft sued over Excel
    • Carlos Armando Amado is suing Microsoft
    • Microsoft loses Excel patent case “Microsoft has been found guilty of patent infringement and ordered to pay a Guatamalan inventor Carlos Armando Amado almost $9m in damages.”
    • In its 2005 10K Filing, Microsoft says, “The judge later found for us on its defense of laches, which reduced the damages award to $5.9 million. The court also imposed an injunction against further distribution of the accused feature as part of Microsoft Access, but stayed the injunction pending appellate review. We have appealed.”
  • American Video Graphics v. Microsoft
    • Patent infringement.   Filed August 2004.
    • Graphics patent holder sues Sony, MS, Nintendo – “[A long list of] companies [in the computer games industry] are charged with violating AVG’s intellectual property rights by allegedly transgressing one or more of 25 separate patents originally filed by and granted to Tektronix. The patents were assigned between 1987 and 1992, and all were sold by Tektronix to a number of third-parties.”
    • More detail at: Patent suits target game industry
    • The first of the cases will go to trial in January 2006, according to a Microsoft 10Q filing available here.
  • AOL Time-Warner v. Microsoft
    • Business Practices.   Filed January 2002; settled May 2003.
    • AOL’s Netscape sues Microsoft: “The lawsuit is based on previous court findings that Microsoft’s business practices amid the infamous browser wars of the 1990s violated two sections of the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act.”
    • Microsoft Legal Newsroom Archive: “The legal settlement resolves the private antitrust lawsuit filed against Microsoft in January, 2002 by AOL Time Warner’s America Online, Inc. unit on behalf of its subsidiary, Netscape Communications. As part of the settlement, Microsoft will pay $750 million to AOL Time Warner.”
  • Apple v. Microsoft
    • Look-and-Feel.   Filed March 1988; decided in favor of Microsoft August 1992; lost on appeal September 1994.
    • History of the case
    • Info on Court of Appeals decision, 1994
    • Court of Appeals decision
    • Letter from Apple’s Michael Spindler to Judge Sporkin 2/13/95 listing MS anticompetitive acts and threats, and 2/23/95 letter from Bill Gates to Spindler after Gates read the letter
    • Apple v. Microsoft: Virtual Identity in the GUI Wars, article in Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, by Joseph Myers, Ap. 10, 1995
    • Cyberlaw on the case
    • Wikipedia
  • Arendi Holdings v. Microsoft
    • Patent infringement.   Filed 2002; decided in favor of Microsoft September 2004.
    • Microsoft patent case goes to trial – Arendi Holdings charges Microsoft with violating its patent for a “method, system and computer readable medium for addressing handling from a computer program.” This is a challenge to Microsoft’s “Smart Tags” technology.
    • Microsoft […] wins Smart Tag case – After a two-week trial, a jury in Rhode Island found that Microsoft’s “Smart Tags” feature does not infringe Arendi Holdings’ Patent 6,323,853.
  • AT&T v. Microsoft
    • Business Practices.   Filed October 1997;
    • Microsoft’s latest opponent: AT&T – This suit, filed in 1997, accuses Microsoft of breach of contract and intentional interference with a prospective business advantage.
    • (Unable to find anything further, but in May of ’99, Microsoft today said it is making a $5 billion investment in AT&T; no mention of the suit in this article).
  • AT&T v. Microsoft
    • Patent infringement.   Filed May 2001; settled March 2004.
    • Complaint For Patent Infringement and Demand for Jury Trial – AT&T accuses Microsoft of infringing its patents in the field of speech coding.
    • AT&T sues Microsoft over alleged patent infringement
    • Battle of the titans
    • Microsoft and AT&T Settle Up
    • Microsoft settles most of patent lawsuit with AT&T Microsoft and AT&T settle all but one claim in a patent infringement suit filed by AT&T in May 2001.
  • Avary v. Microsoft
    • Business Practices.   Filed November 2004.
    • Pulp Fiction writer sues Microsoft over virtual yoga | The Register – “The complaint accuses Microsoft of breach of implied contract, breach of duty, breach of confidence, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair competition and unjust enrichment. Avary claims Microsoft used his ideas in a Yoga game for the X-box designed with ResponDesign called Yourself!Fitness.”
    • Justice Is Not Blind – Avary’s website on the complaint is no longer online, and has been blocked at archive.org.
  • Be, Inc. v. Microsoft
    • BeOS – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    • Microsoft Corp. and Be Inc. Reach Agreement to Settle Litigation (Microsoft press release.) “MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., and REDMOND, Wash. — Sept. 5, 2003 — Be Inc. (Nasdaq: BEOS; OTC:BEOSZ.PK) and Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) today announced that the parties have reached a mutually acceptable mediated settlement of an antitrust lawsuit filed by Be Inc. in February 2002, which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore. Be will receive a payment from Microsoft, after attorney’s fees, in the amount of $23,250,000 (U.S.) to end further litigation, and Microsoft admits no wrongdoing. All other terms of the settlement will remain confidential.”
    • MS Settles Anti-Trust Charges with Be 9/8/03 “Previously, Be claimed that in 1998 its Be Operating System was to be part of Hitachi’s pre-installed “dual boot system.” Be says Microsoft was angry with Hitachi’s decision and pressured the company with higher prices for its Windows OS. Any price increase would pressure Hitachi’s margins on each PC, making it more cost-effective to remove the BeOS.”
  • Blue Mountain Arts v. Microsoft
    • Business Practices.   Filed December 1998
    • Net greeting card company alleges Microsoft is trying to destroy them Blue Mountain alleges that Microsoft set up a competing electronic greeting card Internet site and late in November distributed a trial version of its Internet Explorer software that includes an e-mail filter that sends Blue Mountain cards into a junk mail folder rather than to the intended recipient.
  • Borland v. Microsoft
    • Business Practices.   Filed May 1997; settled September 1997.
    • Borland sues Microsoft over brain drain
    • Borland sues MS over staff poaching – “According to Borland CEO Delbert Yokam, Microsoft has taken on 34 top staff in 30 months and using hard cash incentives ranging up to $1 million. Borland is so desperate to stem the flow that it is seeking a temporary injunction preventing staff from going to its deadly rival. In particular, it claims Microsoft is deliberately draining its developer tools staff in order to debilitate Borland’s ability to compete.”
    • Borland and Microsoft Announce Settlement. “Details of the settlement agreement are confidential.”
  • Brazil: Board of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) v. Microsoft Brazil
    • Business Practices.   Decision August 2004.
    • Competition Law and Policy in Brazil [pdf]. This document discusses the Microsoft issue on pp. 23-26 et seq. “In August 2004, CADE held that Microsoft unlawfully restricted the distribution of Microsoft brand software and associated computing services. Microsoft was fined 10 per cent of its revenues from licensing Microsoft products to the Brazilian federal government.”
    • The case is discussed in this document [pdf], which also details a separate complaint from Paiva Engenharia & Informatica Ltda accusing Microsoft Informatica Ltda of anti competitive conducts for bundling Microsoft Money with its small business package.
  • Bristol Technology v. Microsoft Corp.
    • Business Practices.   Filed August 1998; settled February 2001.
    • Bristol betting all on Microsoft suit
    • Bristol vs. Microsoft: Any Boost from Judge Jackson’s Ruling?
    • Summary: Bristol Technology v. Microsoft The Complaint was filed on August 18, 1998. The case went to trial in June, 1999. On July 17, 1999 the jury returned a verdict for Microsoft on all antitrust counts. It found for Bristol on a state unfair trade practices count, and awarded $1.00.” In August 2000 Judge Hall issued a ruling giving Bristol an award of punitive damages of $1,000,000 and an injunction. In February 2001 the parties announced a settlement, but did not release its terms.
    • Judge blasts MS in Bristol ruling “A federal judge found that Microsoft Corp. engaged in “wanton, reckless” and deceptive business practices against a Connecticut software maker.”
    • RULING ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS [pdf], November 3, 2000. Clear discussion of events in the case up to this point.
  • BTG International et al. [UK] v. Microsoft
    • Patent infringement.   Filed July 2004
    • BTG International, Teleshuttle Corporation and Teleshuttle Technologies v. Apple and Microsoft – patent infringement lawsuit filed in California in July 2004 by the UK companies re software-update functionality in Mac OS X, MSOffice and MS Windows.
    • According to Microsoft’s 10K and 10Q filings, no court date has been set.
  • Burst v. Microsoft
  • Caldera v. Microsoft
  • California Cities sue Microsoft
  • Civil Investigative Demands, U.S. Dept. Of Justice
    • Corel: DoJ Civil Investigative Demand re Corel-Microsoft deal
      • Microsoft Faces New Antitrust Probe Over Corel Deal
    • MSN: DoJ Civil Investigative Demand re Microsoft Network
    • WebTV: DoJ civil investigative demand
      • Microsoft antitrust file grows | CNET News.com
  • Class action lawsuits
    • States
    • International
      • South Korean Group Sues Microsoft Over Slammer – “People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, suing on behalf of more than 1,500 Internet users, 70 Internet cafe owners and an online shopping site, says that Microsoft is at fault …” The suit was based on the country’s Product Liability Act.
  • Daum Communications v. Microsoft
    • Korea’s Daum Files Legal Action Against Windows XP September 5, 2001. Daum Communications, South Korea’s largest Internet portal, said on Wednesday it had filed a complaint against Microsoft Corp alleging that “bundling” constitutes unfair trade practice.
  • eLeaders v. Microsoft
    • Business Practices. Filed November 1999.
    • Initial Complaint in the class action suit filed in the District of Columbia following Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson’s decision in the Federal Antitrust case.
  • Eolas Technologies v. Microsoft
    • Patent infringement.   Filed February 1999; Concluded November 2005.
    • Eolas sues Microsoft for infringement of patent for fundamental web browser technology that makes “plug-ins” and “applets” possible February 1999.
    • Microsoft fined $520m for infringing patents August 2003.
    • Microsoft Alters IE Over Eolas Suit October 2003.
    • Microsoft loses $521m Eolas patent appeal January 2004.
    • Microsoft Scraps IE Changes in Eolas Patent Dispute January 2004.
    • Microsoft Holds Off on Eolas-Related Changes To Windows and Internet Explorer January 2004.
    • Microsoft wins another Eolas web patent battle August 2004.
    • Final judgment and memorandum and opinion [pdf] Consolidated rulings on post-trial motions (no date)
    • Court Overturns Eolas Browser Judgment Against Microsoft March 2005: “The U.S District Court of Appeals on Wednesday called for a new trial on a key aspect of the $520 million jury verdict.”
    • Microsoft Statement in Response to U.S. Court of Appeals Decision in Eolas Patent Case March 2005.
    • Appeals court revisits Eolas decision March 2005: “A federal appeals court partially reversed a lower-court decision that had exposed Microsoft to $565 million in damages. The patent infringement case, brought by the University of California and its Eolas Technologies spinoff, had riled the Web over potential ripple effects that could have forced changes in millions of Web pages that use plug-in applications like Macromedia Flash and Adobe Acrobat that run inside the browser.”
    • Patent Office upholds Eolas browser patent September 2005.
    • Supremes shun Microsoft’s Eolas appeal | Channel Register October 2005.
    • Slashdot | Supreme Court Rejects Microsoft Eolas Appeal November 2005.
    • Microsoft Bows to Eolas, Revamps IE’s Multimedia Handling December 2005.
    • Eolas – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    • Eolas web site links to articles about lawsuit against Microsoft
    • Eolas v. MS – A Premium Royalty Base – article by Kenyon and Kenyon on the case
  • E-Pass v. Microsoft
    • Smart card patent fight to continue, says court E-Pass has also sued 3Com, Compaq, and Visa and Visa International, claiming infringement of their patent on “a method and device for simplifying the use of a plurality of credit cards, or the like.” The case will proceed to trial on 7th March 2005.
  • European Commission anti-trust case
    • European Commission v. Microsoft (UPC): Investigation and settlement requiring Microsoft not to exert “undue influence” on European digital cable television industry.
      • European Commission press release on investigation and settlement Settlement intended to protect competition for market in software for set-top boxes.
    • European Commission v. Microsoft Europe (Win2k and Media Player): Suit challenging alleged deliberate interoperability barriers in Windows servers and clients, unlawful tying of Windows with Windows Media Player
      • Decision of Court of First Instance Sept. 17, 2007
      • en.pdf (application/pdf Object) 2004 Commission decision including findings and rulings. (PDF, 302 pp.)
      • European Commission press release on decision Summarizes ruling on anti-trust claims: As regards interoperability, Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of its relevant productsAs regards tying, Microsoft is required, within 90 days, to offer to PC manufacturers a version of its Windows client PC operating system without WMP. The un-tying remedy does not mean that consumers will obtain PCs and operating systems without media players. Most consumers purchase a PC from a PC manufacturer which has already put together on their behalf a bundle of an operating system and a media player. As a result of the Commission’s remedy, the configuration of such bundles will reflect what consumers want, and not what Microsoft imposes.
      • Microsoft grounds for appealing decision of European Commission (PDF, 2 pp.) Summarizes Microsoft grounds for seeking reversal of European Commission anti-trust decision regarding Windows 2000 and Windows Media Player.Official Journal of the European Union, 10.7.2004, C179/18 (EN)
      • Microsoft PressPass Legal Newsroom Archive
      • Microsoft: Legal News on PressPass
      • AntiTrust.org paper on differences between US and EU antitrust cases [PDF]
      • Are Microsoft’s licences unfair to open-sourcerers? Microsoft was ordered to begin licensing its protocols by the European Union in its anti-trust ruling. FSF Europe says “if you sign this license, you can’t make your work available under GNU GPL.”
  • Federal Trade Commission: Passport
  • France: Syn-X Relief v. Microsoft
  • Forgent v. Microsoft
  • Go Corporation v. Microsoft
  • Goldtouch v. Microsoft
    • Patent Infringement.   Filed December 1988;
    • Goldtouch Claims Patent Infringement
    • Mouse designer sues Microsoft for $1 billion
    • Goldtouch Case Study [pdf] – After engaging in licensing discussions concerning the Goldtouch patented ergonomic mouse design, Microsoft brought out its own very similar design.
  • Hyperphrase v. Microsoft
    • Patent Infringement.   Filed June 2000; Dismissed September 2003.
    • Judge tosses Microsoft Smart Tags case Hyperphrase claimed that Smart Tags technology included in recent versions of Microsoft’s Office productivity software infringed on patents HyperPhrase was granted relating to data storage and retrieval methods. [The judge] agreed with Microsoft’s argument that XML-based Smart Tags operate differently from Hyperphrase’s methods and therefore aren’t covered by the patents. She dismissed the case, which had been scheduled to go to trial Oct. 6.
  • i4i v. Microsoft
  • Inner Workings v. Microsoft
    • Trademark infringement.   Hearing and settlement February 1999.
    • MS strangles puppy to save MacOffice After IW showed its trademarked ‘Lemon Dog’ to Microsoft at a September 1996 trade show in Frankfurt, Microsoft uses a very similar character as an Office Assistant in Mac Office. Settlement terms were not disclosed.
  • Intertrust Technologies v. Microsoft
    • Patent infringement.   Filed April 2001; Settled April 2004.
    • Suit Grows October 22, 2001
    • Microsoft Settles with InterTrust April 12, 2004.
    • Microsoft and InterTrust Settle Outstanding Litigation and License Intellectual Property Microsoft pays $440M to license InterTrust’s DRM technologies.
    • Microsoft Agreement with InterTrust Paves Way for Accelerated Development and Adoption of Digital Distribution Technology
    • Intertrust Technologies – Microsoft Settlement
  • Japan Fair Trade Commission
    • Microsoft Corporation’s Response to the Japanese Fair Trade Commission’s Recommendation
    • Microsoft PressPass – Statement by Microsoft Corporation on Reports of Japanese Fair Trade Commission Inquiry
    • Statement by Microsoft Corporation on Japanese Fair Trade Commission Recommendation
  • Lindows v. Microsoft
    • Microsoft and Lindows Settle Trademark Case
    • Microsoft PressPass Legal Newsroom Archive [Microsoft has removed it, and it’s not available via Archive.org. If anyone finds it elsewhere, please let us know.]
    • Confidential Settlement Agreement $15 million paid by Microsoft to Lindows
  • Macia v. Microsoft, 152 F.Supp.2d 535 (D. Vt. 2001) (trademark infringement – “Unless and until [defendant] uses the mark in the course of trade, to identify actual goods for sale or transport, it cannot be subject to suit for trademark infringement under § 1125(a).”)
    • cited in Novell’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Slander of Title Claim for Failure to Establish Special Damages (“The burden is on the plaintiff in a slander of title action to establish that the harm complained of ‘resulted from the “slander” and not from other factors.'”)
  • Microsoft v. Micro.com
    • Copyright and trademark infringement.   Decision July 2003.
    • Memorandum and Order Microsoft sues a small Maryland company for selling counterfeit copies of MS products. The first footnote says (in part): “This is one of a large number of cases Microsoft has filed in federal courts around the country in an attempt to curtail the illegal distribution of its software. Many of these cases present very similar facts. […] Microsoft’s arguments here mirror the reasoning of these cases.”
  • Microsoft v. spammers
    • Microsoft Files More Spam Suits September 23, 2004: “Microsoft says it has filed 70 lawsuits in the U.S., including the latest group, and is continuing to target spammers and those that support spamming.”
  • Netscape v. Microsoft
  • New York, et al v. Microsoft
    • Stipulation [PDF] 2002
    • Coordinated State Enforcement of Microsoft Antitrust Judgments How to file complaints against Microsoft with the various state attorneys general offices involved in enforcing the judgments involved in New York v. Microsoft. Also has copies of the relevant court judgments for both the New York and California groups.
    • D.C. District Court Opinions, New York v. Microsoft
    • US District Court for the District of Columbia Memorandum and Order, June 7, 2000 US v. MS, C.A. 98-1232/State of NY v. MS Corporation, 98-1233
  • Novell v. Microsoft I
  • Novell v. Microsoft II
  • OS/2
  • Priceline v. Microsoft
    • Patent Infringement.
    • Priceline.com files suit against Microsoft The suit alleges that Expedia’s new “Hotel Price Matcher” service violates Priceline’s patents on its business model.
    • Priceline Sues Microsoft over patent infringement
    • Motion to Dismiss
    • Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss
  • RealNetworks v. Microsoft
  • Seattle Computer Products v. Microsoft
    • SCP wrote the original code which became MS-DOS; they later filed suit against Microsoft. According to these links, the outcome was a $925,000 settlement in SCP’s favor.
    • Bio of Attorney Kelly Corr who was lead counsel in the suit.
    • Bio of John Levy, testifying expert for the plaintiff.
  • SCO
  • Sendo v. Microsoft
    • Microsoft’s masterplan to screw phone partner – full details The Register (clause in partner agreement that in event of bankruptcy, Sendo IP remained Microsoft’s to use for free: “Under the SDMA, in the event of a Sendo bankruptcy, Microsoft would obtain an irrevocable, royalty free license to use Sendo’s Z100 intellectual property, including rights to make, use, or copy the Sendo Smartphone to create other to create other Smartphones and to, most importantly for Microsoft, sublicense those rights to third parties.” The allegation was that Microsoft, with a Microsoft employee, Marc Brown, on the Sendo board as part of the agreement, orchestrated a bankruptcy event.)
    • Microsoft and Sendo Settle Litigation
    • Microsoft settles Sendo ‘tech theft’ lawsuit | The Register
    • MS v. Sendo: It’s Over
  • South Korea Fair Trade Commission antitrust probe
  • Stac Electronics v. Microsoft
  • Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (1997)
  • Sun v. Microsoft (2002)
  • Taiwan Government Anti-Trust Probe
    • Taiwan investigating Microsoft tactics – “The Taiwanese government has launched an investigation into allegations that Microsoft misused its market dominance by indiscriminately increasing prices.”
    • Microsoft to cut prices in Taiwan settlement deal – “Microsoft Corp. will lower prices for some of its software sold in Taiwan by more than 25% as part of a settlement reached with Taiwan’s Fair Trade Commission, the company said. […] In addition to making the price cuts, Microsoft will also make available the components of its Office application as stand-alone applications. The company said it will also share some of the source code for its Windows operating system with the Taiwanese governmentas part of the company’s Government Security Program.”
  • Ticketmaster v. Microsoft
    • Ticketmaster v. Microsoft complaint
  • Timeline (Microsoft v. Timeline)
    • Business Practices.   Filed July 1999; concluded December 2002.
    • Microsoft Files Suit Against Timeline for Breach of Contract Microsoft’s announcement.
    • Microsoft vs. Timeline Final Judgment Affirms Timeline Patent Rights
    • State Sup. Ct. rejects MS appeal
    • Is the SCO suit only the beginning? “Microsoft has a history of licensing third party code and patents in such a manner that still leaves developers and users exposed to IP threats. […] Unlike companies like Oracle Corporation and others, Microsoft chose a cheaper option for the license which left third party developers, users of Microsoft SQL Server, Office and other Microsoft products at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents.”
    • SQL Server developers face huge royalty bills. How many, how much?
    • Settlement
  • Typeright Keyboard Corporation v. Microsoft
  • TV Interactive Data v. Microsoft
    • Microsoft patent-infringement case to go to trial TV Interactive Data alleges that Windows AutoPlay technology infringes on its US patents.

  • U.S. v. Microsoft
    [ back to top ]

    • Miscellaneous
      • FindLaw: U.S. v. Microsoft documents
      • U.S. DoJ–U.S. v. Microsoft archive
        • Decision, United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
        • Findings of Fact, Judge Thomas Pennfield Jackson
        • Trial Exhibits
        • Direct Testimony
        • Depositions
        • Remedy Exhibits
      • OpenLaw: The Microsoft Case – Berkman Center collection, includes transcripts of the trial, exhibits, motions filed, references — many broken links, including all links to Gates video
      • Washington Post’s US v. MS Special Report has Gates video excerpts
      • William Gates’ deposition video, complete
      • Jurist.law.pitt.edu’s MS Antitrust page
      • Washingtonpost.com: WashTech — U.S. v. Microsoft Special Report – A Washington Post resource site for the U.S. v. Microsoft case. Includes links to stories, a timeline, profiles of key players, and an archive of case documents, including some exhibits and Bill Gates’ video deposition.
      • Washington Post’s US v. MS Timeline 1990-2002
      • Declaration of Economist, Kenneth J. Arrow
      • US v. MS, No. 98-1232(CKK) Tunney Act Comments of Professor Einer Elauge on the Proposed Settlement Agreement Between the US and Microsoft, Jan. 27, 2002 [PDF]
      • Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson Order, ruling on MS motions, Sept. 1998, quotes from MS email re Java and Netscape browser strategies and discusses MS’s copyright contention re preemption of antitrust laws
      • David Boies and Ken Auletta on Auletta’s recently published book “World War 3.0: Microsoft and Its Enemies” (February 15, 2001).
      • Falsified Evidence – Coverage of the infamous doctored video.
      • U.S. VS. MICROSOFT: Pursuing a Giant; Retracing the Missteps In the Microsoft Defense, NYTimes, June 9, 2000
      • ‘Twas Oracle That Spied on MS , Declan CmCullagh, Wired, Jun. 28, 2000
      • Judge: ‘Gates Was Main Culprit’
      • Ed Felten’s Testimony [PDF] that it was possible to remove the browser and still run Windows: “4. I have been retained by the Department of Justice to provide my expert opinion on three issues. First, I have been asked to study the structure and function of Windows 98, Windows 95, and Internet Explorer (“IE”), and the relations among them, and determine whether IE Web browsing can be removed from Windows 95, and whether IE Web browsing can be removed from Windows 98. As I will discuss below, my answer to both questions is yes. Furthermore, such removal can be accomplished in a manner that will not endanger the non Web browsing functions provided in Windows 95 or Windows 98. I have prepared a video demonstration of the results of my study which can be found in Exhibit 1202.” Here is Exhibit 1202 in the DOJ collection of trial exhibits.

        Ed Felten’s IE Uninstall app is referenced in this article, DoJ skewers MS exec over falsified video in The Register on Feb. 2, 1999: “Microsoft’s defence took a potentially fatal hit today in court, as the DoJ demonstrated that a video demonstration had been ‘massaged,’ and forced Microsoft senior VP Jim Allchin to concede “they filmed the wrong system.” Basically, Allchin is in big trouble, and his evidence is toast. The video had been played by Microsoft’s defence on Monday. It ostensibly showed how modifications made to Windows 98 by Edward Felten’s IE uninstall program caused severe performance degradation. But the video has given prosecution lawyer David Boies a courtroom scene he can dine out on for the rest of his life. Boies went through the video, freeze-framed it and showed that a title bar had suddenly changed in the middle of the ‘demonstration.’ It had been edited, and the edit had clearly used two versions of Windows, one of which had not been subject to Felten’s modifications. Boies hereby wins our newly-created Register Perry Mason of the Year Award, and should reward his unsung researcher handsomely.”

        Here is the transcript of the cross examination of Mr. Allchin by David Boies on February 2, 1999, and it continues in this transcript, which also has Microsoft’s lawyer, Steven L. Holley, attempt to fix what was unfixable in redirect examination of Mr. Allchin. But the first transcript is the one that has the video demo moment. Both are, ironically enough, in Microsoft’s proprietary .doc format. But you can download OpenOffice.org instead for free and read both transcripts just fine.

    • U.S. v. Microsoft (contempt)
    • U.S. v. Microsoft (antitrust)
      • D.C. District Court Opinions, U.S. v. Microsoft
      • National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) MS Antitrust Case Documents
      • Microsoft on Trial | The Register – Collected links for stories by The Register about the U.S. v. Microsoft anti-trust trial, organized by date.
      • Microsoft’s Settlement Program web site
      • Remedies phase: Microsoft PressPass Legal Newsroom Archive
      • Settlement proceedings: Microsoft PressPass Legal Newsroom Archive
      • Final Judgment, the original one (November 12, 2002)
      • Second Modified Final Judgment, (Originally Entered November 12, 2002; Modified September 7, 2006; Further Modified April 22, 2009)
      • The Technical Committee – “The TC was formed as a part of the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust case between the Plaintiffs – the United States and the states of New York, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin – and the defendant, the Microsoft Corporation.”
      • Trial and appeal: Microsoft PressPass Legal Newsroom Archive
      • U.S. v. Microsoft – DOJ Exhibits
      • MS Said to have pressured Digital to kill Net project
      • Government reportedly investigating Microsoft/Intel relationship – Andy Grove speaks of vague threats
      • Microsoft agrees to antitrust tweaks of XP (June 2005)
    • U.S. v. Microsoft (Intuit)
    • U.S. v. Microsoft (OEM licensing)
      • DoJ — U.S. v. Microsoft: Licensing Case 1994-1995
  • VirnetX Holding Corp v. Microsoft
    • Microsoft to pay $200 million for two VirnetX patents, two months after a federal jury in Tyler, Texas, found Microsoft guilty of patent infringement in Microsoft Windows and Office and ordered it to pay $105.75 million to VirnetX for willful infringement. The following day, VirnetX filed a new motion, alleging infringement of the patents in Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 products. The settlement followed.
  • Visto v. Microsoft
  • Vizcaino v. Microsoft
    • Business Practices; Labor Practices. Filed (state) December 29, 1992; Removed (federal) February 9, 1993; Certified (class; FRCP 23) July 21, 1993; Settlement (final) September 30, 2005.
    • Settlement web site
    • Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion. May 12, 1999
    • Notice of Settlement and Settlement Agreement
    • 5-year Microsoft worker left out in cold Friday, June 25, 1999 By LISA STIFFLER, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
    • Wikipedia: Permatemp Portmanteau
  • Wang Labs v. Microsoft
    • Patent Infringement.
  • WordPerfect
    • Apple and WordPerfect Announce OpenDoc Amy Wohl article from June 1993.
    • FindLaw – Agreement and Plan of Reorganization – Novell Inc. and WordPerfect Corp.
    • FindLaw – Amendments to Agreement and Plan of Reorganization – Novell Inc. and WordPerfect Corp.
    • In Search of Stupidity — Chpt 9 — Over 20 Years of High-Tech Marketing Disasters Short history of Novell during period that it merged with WP Corp. No citations to sources of information.
    • Liebowitz, S. and S. Margolis. Winners, Losers, and Microsoft: Competititon and Antitrust in High Technology Sample chapters provide detailed economic analysis of the word processor and spreadsheet markets during periods relevant to Novell v. Microsoft.
    • MS Office lead developer blogs on the word processor wars No references. But MS Office’s former lead developer gives Microsoft’s version of the WP-Word wars, in some detail.
    • Word 2 Easter Egg – Squash the WordPerfect Monster! – Egg Heaven “Squash the WordPerfect Monster” animated “easter egg” in MSFT Word 2

Legal research
[ back to top ]

Miscellaneous
[ back to top ]

  • Halloween I
  • Halloween II
  • Halloween III
  • Microsoft’s lawsuit payouts amount to around $9 billion
  • Watching Microsoft Like a Hawk
  • MSFREE – Information and Technology Alternatives to MS’ Monopoly Small ‘MS On Trial’ section near the bottom of the page.
  • Microsoft Watch
  • Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
  • Microsoft, hardware vendors face raft of OEM license suits – “A FRENCH GINGER group is forecasting further legal action against Microsoft and system manufacturers in France for bundling Windows software with built machines and failing to give adequate recompense if people don’t accept the user end licence agreement.” 12/12/04
  • From Microsoft Word to Microsoft World: How Microsoft is Building a Global Monopoly NetAction White Paper, 1997
  • Cybersnare by Roberto Di Cosmo, note references particularly
  • Former Employee Says Acer Bowed to Microsoft 1998 Reuters story on Acer America Corp. allegedlly pressured to use MS products
  • Bruce Perens: The Problem of Software Patents in Standards
  • Microsoft and Antitrust links: Netsurfer Focus
  • Support Group for People Used by Microsoft
  • washingtonpost.com: Microsoft
  • US v. MS: An Economic Analysis by Franklin M. Fisher and Daniel L. Rubenfeld, based in part on testimony offered at trial.
  • Evaluating Product Integration: Lessons Learned from US v. Microsoft by Franklin M. Fisher and Mary Beth Savio. Fisher was principal economic witness for the DOJ Antitrust Division in US v. MS.
  • Startup by Jerry Kaplan, on GO pen computing startup, run-ins with MS
  • Microsoft the Company aaxnet.com’s collection of cases involving Microsoft (homepage)
  • The Swedish Chef Goes After MS Opera

Topics
[ back to top ]

  • BeOS
  • BSA
  • Business Practices
  • China
    • Microsoft Corporation (China), Ltd. v. Beijing Yadu Science and Technology Group
  • F/OSS
    • F/OSS Licensing
    • Gnu/Linux
      • Microsoft memo: Linux fight backfiring | CNET News.com
      • Microsoft: Linux a threat to NT | CNET News.com
      • SCO Group Launches Broadside Against GPL
      • Why SCO Thinks It Can Win
  • FoxPro
  • Licensing
    • Consumer Alert
    • Is Microsoft Licensing Forcing Banks to Break The Law?
    • Inside Windows-Update [missing link] – Detailed and fairly technical discussion about the information Microsoft collects during the Windows Update process.
    • Hidden Connections [missing link] made by Windows XP.
    • Microsoft’s IM letter means you agree to pay and upgrade
    • A Fatal Blow to Shrinkwrap Licensing? Settlement of California case regarding shrinkwrap licensing (in consumer’s favor). The site also has a section called EULA Reviews
    • A Comparison of the GPL and the Microsoft EULA [pdf]
    • Windows and HIPAA September 13, 2002: “Here’s the question: Since Microsoft may start using its new rights [to silently revise your operating system, included in XP SP1 and 2000 SP3] any time, won’t it soon be against federal law for health care providers [who are covered by HIPAA regulations] to rely on Windows to handle patient records?”
    • MS takes big stick to Dutch resellers “At least a hundred Dutch hardware resellers are facing legal action by Microsoft for violation of the company’s OEM licensing policy. […]many of the resellers claim they did nothing illegal and have called for legal aid.”
    • Forse schadeclaims MS voor distributeurs Article [in Dutch] contains more detail about Microsoft’s claims regarding reselling of licenses.
  • Patents
  • Piracy
    • Gates, Buffett a bit bearish | CNET News.com Bill Gates: “Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don’t pay for the software,” he said. “Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.”
    • Gotcha: Did Microsoft use Warez for Windows XP? Nine sound files installed with XP appear to have been generated using a cracked version of Sound Forge.
    • Microsoft New Zealand Investigating 254 Software Piracy Leads “Microsoft is investigating more than 250 piracy leads as a result of its ‘Five Plus Five’ program. The program offers a $5,000 reward for information that leads to a successful legal action against businesses running unlicensedMicrosoft software, as well as $5,000 in cash to a designated New Zealand charity.”
    • Microsoft Files Eight Lawsuits Alleging Distribution of Counterfeit COA Labels And Infringing Software in California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Washington.
  • Standards
    • Microsoft tool kits mess up development of TCP/IP apps April 1, 1996: “Microsoft Corp., perhaps unwittingly, has been shipping [Windows 95] developer tool kits that build applications that break when they run with non-Microsoft TCP/IP stacks, the company admitted last week. […] Microsoft’s competitors inthe TCP/IP space, meanwhile, are livid. ‘Microsoft has taken an open standard and turned it into a proprietary Microsoft implementation; that’s a major concern’.”
    • Competition in the Network Market: The Microsoft Challenge Whitepaper issued by the Software Publishers Association in June, 1998, addressing alleged anti-competitive practices.
    • SPA says Microsoft server strategy is anticompetitive June 22, 1998: From the whitepaper “The time to prevent anticompetitive distortion in the enterprise software market is now, not after Microsoft’s merger of the desktop and enterprise operating systems gives it a stranglehold on both markets.”
    • Microsoft and standards: The rules have changed October 5, 1998: With the rise of the internet, Microsoft has been less successful in dictating non-standard standards.
  • Vaporware
    • Vaporware: Ethics in computing site Many links to sources on vaporware.

© Copyright 2003-2011 Pamela Jones

juliac, pj and Erwan are the maintainers of this page


Last Updated Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 10:28 PM EDT