Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Novell Microsoft Government The Courts News

Should We Follow Novell v. MS in Detail? 202

Posted by samzenpus from the pay-attention-to-stuff dept.
e6003 writes "Groklaw has a fascinating article written by a retired attorney. In short, he believes FOSS advocates should be following the recently announced Novell anti-trust case against Microsoft with as much vigour as we do the SCO-IBM case. Whilst the latter is to all intents and purposes settled in favour of the Good Guys, the article points out how Novell v. MS is far harder to call. Evidence produced during this new case, he argues, may be valuable for proving anti-competitive intent on Microsoft's behalf should MS (or a proxy) go on a patent rampage against FOSS. Finally, the article points out that Microsoft either destroys evidence itself (see the Burst.com case) or requires evidence to be destroyed as part of settlements (as in the Caldera DR-DOS case)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should We Follow Novell v. MS in Detail? More

Should We Follow Novell v. MS in Detail?

Comments Filter:

  • Can anyone tell me... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Aneurysm9 ( 723000 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:15PM (#10848997)
    why anti-competitive intent would have any bearing on a patent suit? Aren't patents intended as monopolies that will be used, at least in many cases, anti-competitively?

    • Patents and antitrust (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepplesNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:36PM (#10849198) Homepage Journal

      Anticompetitive misuse of a given patent attracts more researchers to search for prior art that would invalidate that patent. In addition, 35 USC 271(d)(5) [cornell.edu] implies a narrow exception to the definition of patent infringement where one with "market power" (that is, a monopolist) ties the purchase of a patented product to another specific product.

    • Re:Can anyone tell me... (Score:4, Informative)

      by tekunokurato ( 531385 ) <jackphelps@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:40PM (#10849223) Homepage
      No. Patents protect the "inventor" from other people competing against them with duplicate products/processes/whatever. They do not protect the holder from competition in the marketplace. Anticompetitive behavior is using force to keep products unfairly out of participation in the marketplace. Keep in mind that patents aren't on actual results--if you have two black boxes which both produce, say, anti-gravity but they do it in different ways, the patents will not infringe. But if the owner of one company squelches the other one to death outside of the marketplace, they are being "anitcompetitive."

      • Re:Can anyone tell me... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by laird ( 2705 ) <lairdp@gmaSLACKWAREil.com minus distro> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:12PM (#10849849) Journal
        "Patents protect the "inventor" from other people competing against them with duplicate products/processes/whatever. They do not protect the holder from competition in the marketplace."

        In an ideal world you might be right. In practice, patents can be so broad that they cover any means of doing something, and a company with an aggressive patent strategy can very effectively block anyone else from competing in their arena. Look for example at GemStar -- even though they failed completely with their products, they patented everything even remotely related to on screen TV listings, to the point where TV Guide (!) was forced to merge with them because the Gemstar patents prevented them from competing in the electronic program guide market, because there's no way to work around basic patents such as on displaying TV listings in a grid on the screen, or clicking a button to record a TV program. Not a specific means of implementing the grid, but actually ANY display of tv programs in a grid on screen, is exclusively Gemstar's. But they're not the only company using fundamental patents -- Motorola got the patent on the heat sink on the transistor, and made many, many $millions on it. And don't get me started on how Philo T. Farnsworth was treated by RCA, who used their broad radio patent portfolio to take over his invention, and crush all competition.

      • Re:Can anyone tell me... (Score:4, Informative)

        by back_pages ( 600753 ) <back_pages&cox,net> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:39PM (#10850045) Journal
        I'm sorry but this is 99% false.

        Patents are a license to sue. They are designed as licenses to sue. They grant the assignee a temporary monopoly should he/she/it choose to enforce it and they grant a source of revenue should he/she/it choose to license it.

        If you have two black boxes and both produce anti-gravity but by different means, one may infringe upon the other. This example would likely fall under a "product by process" claim, and the burden would fall on the inventor of the second product to prove that his antigravity is patentably distinct from the first antigravity, if the first black box is patented with a product by process claim. In distilled form, the rules regarding prior art for product by process claims during prosecution of a patent application state that (in this case) antigravity which is "substantially identical" to antigravity produced by a different process is prior art and the second invention's antigravity is NOT patentably different from the prior art.

        Now, if we stay away from patenting the antigravity itself (and therefore away from a product by process claim) you could easily have to patentable devices for producing antigravity.

        And, for discussion's sake, I'm pretending that antigravity is patentable. ;)

        No offense to the original poster, but the fact that it was modded so highly informative ought to make some people (some with mod points, some without) think about how informed the Slashdot crowd really is about the patent system. Again I reiterate - no offense to the original poster.

        • I'm not sure about the US system but in Europe or Australia you would not be able to patent a black box that produces Anti-Gravity.

          You'd have to describe the innards of the box in such a way as to "someone skilled in the art" would be able to reproduce it, i.e. make their own anti-gravity devices that work (but the Law would not allow them to use their own devices for anything, let alone sell them).

          I'm not sure what a "patent by process" is, would you be so kind as to describe it, perhaps with another exa
        • You clearly have a good working knowledge of the patent system, but you've missed my fundamental point (and the stated objectives of the USPTO)--patents cover processes, not business outcomes. There are many ways to fullfill most desires, and a patent covers only one. I didn't say the burden of proof fell on one party or another. Using that as an argument for why I'm incorrect is pretty stupid.

          If I invent a patented black box that makes something lighter than air and you invent a patented black box that re
    • Don't mean to be rude, but why does little stuff like corporate patent law even matter when we now live in a society where the House Majority Leader can remain in his position even when indicted?

      You are joking aren't you, or is this just another attempt to look away from the larger issue that such disputes are now just arbitrated in favor of the highest bidder or are just to be debated into sterility on TV or the internet in a way that diffuses any focused collective effort at intellect? Let's not think,
      • Don't mean to be rude, but why does little stuff like corporate patent law even matter when we now live in a society where the House Majority Leader can remain in his position even when indicted?

        You do know the difference between an indictment and a conviction, don't you? Just because he's been indicted doesn't mean he's guilty, just that he's going to have to stand trial. Now, if he retained his position after a conviction, then you'd have a complaint.

        • The republicans made this particular rule to make themselves look more moral at a previous point in time. Now that it turns out that it can be used against one of their own, they are overturning that rule.

          This situation really has little to do with the particular categorical imperatives involved. Someone is being treated as if rules don't need to apply to them.

          Given what his minions are involved in, he should have stepped down already in order to avoid an appearance of impropriety.

          However, we all know th
    • I know its not really the 'thing to do' but I RTFA.

      What it is about is starting a repository where data about all companies can be stored.

      As it shows in the article companies (i.e. M$) destroy all of _their_ copies of data and otherwise, meaning that if in the future there is a problem we will have no proof in a court of law those events occured(Those 'haloween' emails for example) By making a repository where we can keep them we will alway be able to pin M$ to the stake rather than letting them get awa
    • why anti-competitive intent would have any bearing on a patent suit? Aren't patents intended as monopolies that will be used, at least in many cases, anti-competitively?

      Monopolies are held to a different standard of conduct. The enforcement of a legal patent can still be illegally anti-competitive. Convicted illegal monopolies are held to an even tougher standard.

  • yes evidence! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fozzy(pro) ( 267441 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:17PM (#10849020)
    "I believe the Novell-Microsoft case, regardless of outcome, could have a major beneficial impact for FOSS, providing we watch it closely. Groklaw is uniquely positioned to collect and disseminate information about the case. In a nutshell, the Novell complaint promises a bonanza of evidence that Microsoft engages in unfair competition to maintain its monopoly in the PC software operating system market and to extend that monopoly to the application markets."

    This is a good idea. As MS could sue over StarOffice/OpenOffice, evidnece may come up that is relevant..

    • Re:yes evidence! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:31PM (#10849156)
      The other reason this is important is that (according to the article) Microsoft tends to destroy evidence at the conclusion of each anti-trust case. So apparantly unless we collect it at Groklaw, it will be gone by the time we really need it.
    • Tell me how evidence in the Novell case becomes admissible in any other case. Novell is permitted to probe only as deep as is needed to make it's own case. It cannot become a fact-finder for others. Tell me why once a final decision or settlement is reached either party is obligated to maintain the records from which the evidence in the case was drawn.
      • Because if evidence is accepted as fact in one case, it becomes a matter of record. This potentially makes discovery easier in related future cases, as well. If the evidence is sealed, an attorney in the hypothetical future case can petition for it to be unsealed.
        • rather dificult to unseal evidence which has been destroyed... which is precisely why I hoovered up and archived all those documents presented in the Sun vs Microsoft case... which strangely enough has been sealed as part of the settlement terms.

    • Re:yes evidence! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by IntlHarvester ( 11985 )
      I'm not clear on why Novell vs Microsoft is more interesting than Sun vs Microsoft or AOL/Netscape vs Microsoft (both mostly ignored on Groklaw & Slashdot). Or why anyone thinks the result will be any different than those two (cash + technology cross-licences).

      I guess it will be interesting to hear in gory detail how WordPerfect blew a dominant market position through bad programming and bad marketing and about Microsoft's usual tricks. Also I sincerely look forward to the OpenDoc flamewars.
      • Well Lately Novell has been a big and vocal Linux supporter, so they feel that Novell is the good guy.

        For some reason a lot of Slashdoters really don't care for Sun Microsystems much. It is probably due to the angelical following to Linux and open source. So with Sun whos' main goal is to create a profit is out casted because Sun tries to do things that make profit and sometimes it is by not doing it the open source way.

        AOL/Netscape vs. Microsoft: Most slashdotters poo-poo AOL users as a bunch of no noth

  • The "Good Guys" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:20PM (#10849050) Journal
    This phrase is so loaded that it's hard to broach anything resembling a middle ground here. If you refer to Microsoft as the "enemy" and everyone else (excluding SCO) the "Good Guys", how can you expect to be partial when delivering judgement.

    Take a look at what's going on in Iraq. The American "Good Guys" are wiping out the "Bad Guys". From the other perspective, the Iraqi "Good Guys" are being slaughtered at the hands of the American "Bad Guys". It all depends on your perspective. Until you give up the notion of "good vs. evil" in your considerations, you will never be able to find a common ground and eventually peace.

    You have to understand that not only are Microsoft and Novell's hands completely clean, they are not completely dirty either. The Iraqi resistor may be shooting at the American soldier because he believes that the occupation is unjust. The American soldier may be shooting back only because he has been trained to kill instead of think. Each one has their reasons, and to them, their actions are perfectly reasonable.

    Until you can find a way to reason with the "enemy" and truly come to an understanding, you will never win. You will only fight.

    There's an old saying, "The only way to destroy an enemy is to make him your friend."

    • Re:The "Good Guys" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:26PM (#10849111)
      So, we aren't allowed to define "bad guys" as "guys who try to pervert the law in order to accomplish something in direct opposition to it's spirit?"

      • Re:The "Good Guys" (Score:3, Interesting)

        by xenocide2 ( 231786 )
        In the america vs iraq example, who's law? Kant's theoretical law of democracy through war and peace, or the Islamic law that the insurgents are fighting for? Kant disagreed with a state mandated religion, and I'm pretty sure Islamic law isn't subject to the whims of the people.
        • Sorry, as I stated above, I refuse to discuss Iraq in this article, as it would be grossly off-topic. Besides that, I don't know enough about either Kant or Islamic law to have an informed opinion anyway! Finally, I didn't intend to discuss ideology -- my definition accepts "spirit of the law" at face value, whether it's right or wrong.
          • Now that I think about it, I think perhaps my definition should be limited to situations where all parties accept the binding nature of the law. In other words, by the fact of their US citizenship, people like Bill Gates, Darl McBride, and Richard Stallman agree to be bound by US copyright law.

            In contrast, Americans do not accept Islamic Law and Iraqis do not accept American law, so there's no common basis to reconcile what "the spirit of the law" is for the combined group.
        • It is unclear that there is any islamic principle that support the Iraqi insurgency at this point. The stated goal of the US military has been to rebuild the anthill that they knocked over and get the hell back out. Any action that slows this process is ultimately harmful to the nation of Iraq and the average Mo.

          The militias just aren't blowing up GI's. They are also attempting to destroy the law enforcement infastructure, scaring off simple truck drivers and power plant maintenance crews. They are also be
      • Correct. What if it is an unjust law?
        • Once you start talking about that you have to start debating morality, which can differ between people. In that case, there's no possible way to have a clear-cut definition. So, in order to avoid that problem, my statement assumes the law is just.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:29PM (#10849133)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:The "Good Guys" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:54PM (#10849318)
      Wow. I never thought I'd see the day when this argument was logically followed through to its conclusion *and shown to be false by the person making it*.

      This "everyone has to be objective" thing is nonsense. No one is truly objective. Everyone has a personal stake in whatever it is that interests them, just by them being interested.

      You said it yourself. Each side believes they are right. That's likely true. And whether or not in the grand scheme of things one is more morally justified than the other, it is a natural thing for people to choose sides and then fight for them. (And it's not entirely people, either - wolves choose a side againts rabbits, and the rabbits against the wolves.)

      It's this "everyone must be objective" and "one must always reason" argument that leads to more problems. If you don't believe me, there's a gentleman named Neville Chamberlain who was proof enough otherwise. Saddam was evil; there can be no doubt about that. That he is no longer in power can only be a good thing.

      The same goes for Microsoft and Novell. No one company is pure good; however, some are worse than others. Microsoft has been in hot water with not only the DOJ, but the Eurpoean Union. Countless examples of their anti-competitive practices exist - ask Netscape or Be. So to say that Microsoft is the "bad guy" in this situation is not only smart, but also accurate. Painting Novell as the "good guy" is accurate as well - they're one of the few companies that have survived against Microsoft's continued sabotage.

      While it may work on planet Vulcan, here on earth, people take sides. Sides are good and bad. Very few instances have those sides so equal as to not be able to tell the good from the bad; this is certainly not one of those instances.
      • The problem with all of this is that Microsoft still turns out to be a bad guy even if you "enforce objectivity". The facts remain. History remains. Gates started out in business by blackmailing and then betraying his first big customer.

    • Re:The "Good Guys" (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rewt66 ( 738525 )
      You have a good point - in general. But applied to Microsoft, you've got to be kidding. I do not want to "reason with" Microsoft. Even more, I do not want to make Microsoft my friend. I've seen what they do to their friends, historically, and it resembles what a female black widow spider does to the male.

      See, Microsoft isn't a person. It's a corporation. And it doesn't care how much I want to be friends with it. I'm small enough, Microsoft doesn't even know that I exist. Microsoft is not going to c

    • Re:The "Good Guys" (Score:3, Interesting)

      by aralin ( 107264 )
      Looking in the history, I'd have to say that Genocide worked just fine for many. Genghis Khan burned to ground any city which resisted and killed all men, women and childern. He had surprisingly few enemies. There is a lot of wisdom to these old sayings, but trust me, there is never "only way" to anything.

      But I agree with you that if you look at things with "good" and "evil" labels in mind, it just clouds your vision. Lets get back to forementioned Genghis Khan. If he would dwell on problems like is a gen

      • made him a very successful ruler

        Depends how you define that. Genghis Khan is one of the few people in history who managed to make his memory universally loathed in EVERY region he ruled over, except in his native Mongolia. If you measure your success as a ruler by how you are remembered in the history books after you die, then he was a reather unsuccessful ruler indeed.

        Other great imperial rulers have their checkered histories, and probably had to kill a few people and piss some off to maintain order,
        • If you measure your success as a ruler by how you are remembered in the history books after you die

          Thats extremly bad measure, since the books you read are mostly written by his enemies. I think that Alexander the Great and Caesar wouldn't look half that good if most of the records about them that survived until today wouldn't come from their respective nations.

          I measure the success by how much time of peace and prosperity did the ruler secure for citizens living inside the borders of his influence. By

          • Thats extremly bad measure, since the books you read are mostly written by his enemies.

            Maybe because he had no friends? Seriously though, plenty of other conquering peoples aren't in my nation-states' direct lineage, like the Ottoman Turks, and while they did plenty of nasty things too, I don't think they were on the level of Genghis Khan.
            • Maybe because he had no friends? Seriously though, plenty of other conquering peoples aren't in my nation-states' direct lineage, like the Ottoman Turks, and while they did plenty of nasty things too, I don't think they were on the level of Genghis Khan.

              This really depends on who you ask. For example if you will go to Slovakia, which is a country that was on a border of expansion of both Genghis Khan's and Ottoman's empires, just west of Ukraine, you will find no bad feelings, memories or accounts of Geng

            • Talk to the Armenians about the Turks. "Genocide" is the word most commonly used to described what happened.
    • Your reading it wrong. That statement was in reference to SCO, and yes, Slashdot as a community is generally of the opinion that SCO are "Bad Guys". I'm not sure I 100% agree with that, but I certainly am more willing to accept that characterization than I am to accept it refering to Microsoft, the way you seem to have taken it. Microsoft is motivated by profits and little else, but they do continue to produce some things which benefit the public at large to some (perhaps insufficient for the impact they ha

    • Re:The "Good Guys" (Score:3, Insightful)

      by lobsterGun ( 415085 )
      The parent post typifies relativism at its most boring.

      It denies that there are just causes that are worth fighting for. What a sad world this would be if it were true.
    • Agreed. Particualrly when you consider that Novell, Caldera/SCO, Canopy all come from the same Noorda stable and seem to share a common business model. Buy a struggling company a sue the shit out'a somebody bigger. They sure have had some big payouts in the last ten years or so.

      Still, the article in question does makes a very valid point about why the case should be followed from a FOSS perpective.
      • I don't think the business model is the problem, but rather whether they have a legitimate grievance against the company they're suing (e.g. SCO didn't, but Novell (as far as I know) does).

        That doesn't mean that buiness models can't ever be a problem; Microsoft's business model of stifling competition is illegal, for instance.

    • Re:The "Good Guys" (Score:2, Insightful)

      by subsoniq ( 652203 )
      The Iraqi resistor may be shooting at the American soldier because he believes that the occupation is unjust. The American soldier may be shooting back only because he has been trained to kill instead of think.

      Now just hold on here a second, this sounds like a loaded statement. I served 8 years in the US military and I can say that one of the things they train you on quite a bit is conduct in war, especially the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of War. To insinuate that American troops are trained to sh

  • Sounds like a good idea to me! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:21PM (#10849058)
    From the article:
    At a minimum, following this case will help prepare us better to understand the IBM unfair competition counterclaims in the SCO v. IBM case. But even better, evidence of such tactics can establish Microsoft's improper motives as part of an unfair competition defense to later Microsoft lawsuits or legislative attacks on FOSS, such as lawsuits asserting Microsoft's alleged intellectual property rights like patents and copyrights as weapons against FOSS. The existence of such a database may also to some degree deter Microsoft from pursuing such tactics.

    <snip>

    A public and freely available repository for such evidence would be an incredible resource for FOSS lawyers, developers, and users likely to need such evidence in the future. Unfair competition defenses to IP lawsuits require, by definition, that the motive of anti-competitive acts be proved. The acts must not only be proved to have an anti-competitive effect, but also that they were knowingly intended to have such effects. Bear in mind that it's a truism of anti-trust litigation that even lawful acts taken for an unlawful anti-competitive purpose are unlawful.
    Anything that we can use to defend ourselves against Microsoft is a good thing in my book!

    [I'm not the most impartial person around, of course...]

  • my vote... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:22PM (#10849063)

    ...is that editors be limited to one story about it per week. I'm sorry, but I'm just fed up after the tabloid-like fetish the editors had with the whole SCO thing that most of us didn't give a crap about, at least not on anything near that level. "Darryl sneezes!" "Assistant wipes his nose for him!" "IBM has no comment!" "Groklaw eloquently pontificates!" "IBM says 'bless you', is settlement around the corner?"

    Wait- make that twice a week, if you count the inevitable duplicate because the editors can't be bothered to read their own site.

    Metaediting, anyone? Jolly good!

  • Pronounced:

    Spo (long O) Li a (long A) tion

    SPOILATION is the last refuge of the above-the-law. It will result in a judgment against the party spoiling the evidence - sooner or later.

    • Re:Spoilation (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:45PM (#10849260)
      www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2002/02/25/foc us6.html

      The above link is a good article on the subject. Basically, if you know that litigation is coming, you can not destroy evidence. That's for civil cases. Destroying evidence in criminal cases really gets you in trouble.

      Spoilation became a big issue with the Enron case. In other words, the rules of the game have become much clearer. What Microsoft thought it could get away with, it can't anymore.

  • Maybe (Score:2)

    by jd ( 1658 )
    It would be better to save the evidence and have the DoJ just destroy Microsoft. It would cut down on the increase in entropy.
  • A lot of linux zeolots around here (and even some Windows users) will be thinking that anything that could hurt Microsoft must be linux friendly.

    So my answer to the question posed in the title is "yeah, why not?" Besides, it is topical to current computer events.

  • Summary of why we should care (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fireboy1919 ( 257783 ) <rustyp AT freeshell DOT org> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:52PM (#10849300) Homepage Journal
    1) This case will provide evidence of why Microsoft is evil.
    2) This evidence will show us the face of evil, so that we know what we're looking for when other companies, such as SCO, are evil.
    3) When they do more evil, the victims can bring up this evidence in court.

    In this case, by the way, "evil" mostly means "anti-competitive and monopolistic."

  • Canopy, not Microsoft, requested destruction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rufusdufus ( 450462 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:59PM (#10849361)
    If you read the sources carefully especially this [groklaw.net] you will see that it was Canopy, the successors of Caldera that wanted to destroy their evidence because it was costing them too much to maintain it, and they didnt need it anymore because their case was finished.

    The key line is "The Canopy Group, Inc. ("Canopy"), filed a motion to this court seeking permission to dispose of hundreds of boxes in its possession..", "the primary issues relate to Canopy's desire to avoid further burden and expense.."

    The sort of fudging of facts in the headline here is how you get people who are nearly insane with hatred who post here making the linux crowd look totally unstable to the mainstream.
    • Of course, what with Microsoft lurking in the shadows behind "SCO vs Anything Linux-Related" and infusing cash here and there, one can be excused for suspecting that Microsoft may have slipped Canopy a few million to make destruction of evidence a priority.

    • The sort of fudging of facts in the headline here is how you get people who are nearly insane with hatred who post here making the linux crowd look totally unstable to the mainstream.

      yeah, well every little bit helps :)

    • "If you read the sources carefully especially this you will see that it was Canopy, " If you had read the sources carefully you would have noticed this "We already have strong indications from other cases such as Burst v. Microsoft that Microsoft has had a document retention policy that has resulted in routine destruction of corporate emails, sometimes even, according to Burst, if they related to looming litigation issues. Microsoft's response to that accusation can be read here." "The key line is "The C

  • A railroad bridge case.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @09:04PM (#10849404)
    Back in the bad old days of the railroad - one of the barrons bought up much of the 'good' crossing point land up and down a river. This allowed said barron to 'have control' over access. Eventually the courts declared that the other railroads could not be denyed the crossing point under the idea that access to critical resources can not be denied.

    It is possible this chestnut could be dusted off and used VS Microsoft.

  • Why should we? (Score:5, Informative)

    by rewt66 ( 738525 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @09:07PM (#10849428)
    Groklaw's doing it. Groklaw does careful, thorough, detailed work. Slashdot doesn't do the kind of in-depth research. (Semi-obsessively reading both sites, I think that I can objectively say that.)

    If you feel strongly that this needs to be done, go over to Groklaw and help.
    • The article is asking "Should Groklaw care about this," and I believe the submitter is asking "should we bother to help Groklaw [which would require caring about this]?"

      In other words, the submitter is advising that we do just what you suggest: "go over to Groklaw and help."

  • one of these things is not like the other (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @09:31PM (#10849604) Homepage Journal
    I do not see that the SCO v IBM case is all that decided, nor are the similiar in any interesting way. Furthermore, I do not think that there would be any great interest if SCO had limited the case to the alleged misappropriation by IBM.

    But they did not. They started a PR campaign against open source. Why they did this we may never know. Perhaps it was just a publicity ploy. Perhaps it was a way to way to raise funds for an expensive fight against IBM. In any case, that is what most found interesting.

    IBM may very well have taken code and used it in an unlicensed manner. Who knows. IBM is very big, and can probably get away with stuff like that. MS probably did tweak the API so as to disable Wordperfect. The defense will be that both were on the decline already and were unlikely to survive in any case. Even if IBM or MS loses, the payments are unlikely to significantly hurt the companies. And both will go on following the SOP of doing whatever it takes to make a dollar.

  • This isn't a question for the unwashed /. masses (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NullProg ( 70833 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @09:45PM (#10849699) Homepage Journal
    Its a question for those of us who were around at the time.

    The much anticipated Word Perfect for Windows (6.0) was crap when released. The mass migration to Word was immediate afterwards (especially when Word would import your Word Perfect documents for you).

    Word Perfect Corporation (not Novell) at the time claimed it was due to Microsoft's Win32 SDK. They also claimed that the Beta version of the SDK they developed for was different than the production release.

    According to Joel Spolsky in this story: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1726059,00.as p
    It was due to WordPerfect being written in assembler vs 'C' and the office team could write code faster. I disagree as the owner of DOS, MacIntosh and AppleGS versions of WordPerfect. Two of which are GUI/Event driven prior to the release of the Windows 3.x version. All three versions didn't suck. I don't think they used 100% assembler and I have no proof to back up this comment.

    Enter into the true slashdot conversation on this article.

    1) Did Microsoft withhold SDK information from competitors in the first release of Windows 3.0?

    2) Why did Ashton Tate (dBase), Lotus (1-2-3), and others also have problems with their first Windows 3.0 versions? (Keep in mind, all had GUI/Event driven products for MacIntosh/Amiga etc. at the time).

    3) Was Word Perfect and others written in Assembler?

    BTW, Novell should let this thing go. Proof will be hard to find. Evidence will be circumstantial at best. Spend the lawyer fees on improving SuSE. The hell with Microsoft. It's a new era and a new playing field.

    Lets discuss,
    Enjoy.
    • Dos isnt done until Lotus doesnt run?
      DR Dos "activities"?

      1) I dont know, but I would not rule out MS playing with the Win32 SDK. It was new, and those outside MS would know the true direction and have access earlier. Those outside would be at a disadvantage. I believe that they did. Proof? Well, nothing except past MS behaviour.

      2) See number 1. Also, it was not clear at that time that Windows was going anywhere. The only company that was going to bet the farm on Windows was the author of Windows.
    • 1) Probably.

      2) How were Micrographix, Aldus, Ami, and others able to release high quality first gen Windows programs while the larger shops at Lotus and WordPerfect were unable to? (Honest question, perhaps MS was nicer to the small guys.)

      Related question is why Lotus & WordPerfect were also unable to produce a decent Macintosh or OS/2 PM apps.

      3) The legend is that Macintosh version of WordPerfect is STILL in assembler. Coding in Assembler was not all that odd in the DOS and Apple II worlds.
      • Your cheating...

        Aldus, Ami, didn't show up to the Microsoft party until after/during Windows 3.11.


        Related question is why Lotus & WordPerfect were also unable to produce a decent Macintosh or OS/2 PM apps.
         Good question. I don't know the answer though. The Mac interface to Word Perfect was always OK. But the PM/OS2 interface stunk.

        Maybe they didn't buy the first SDK?

    • Re:This isn't a question...Yes, I Remember It Well (Score:5, Informative)

      by darkPHi3er ( 215047 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:23PM (#10850277) Homepage
      "Its a question for those of us who were around at the time."

      Ok, i'll bite.

      Not only did i wait on deploying MS Word, i was a "decider" for several large entities that were waiting for the consultant community to pick a winner.

      WordPerfect for Windows 6 (WPW6) was a train wreck, but as i remember (reasonably well, i believe), it was primarily a question of DESIGN (i.e. usuability), NOT reliability that pushed me and my customers to MS Word.

      The outstanding clarity of design focus that was evident in WordPerfect 5/5.5 was (OBVIOUSLY, IMHO), completely lacking in WPW6.

      The WPW6 menus, past the obligatory XWin/Win components were illogical, occasionally misleading and often confusing. As were many of the dialogs.

      I would hold that most of this confusion came from the complete departure from the long established Wang meta tag block text markup interface that SSI WordPerfect, UMMM, "adopted" for their own, with two pane screen windows, one for text and one for the markup meta tags.

      Though this was available in WPW6, it was awkwardly implemented, and in design terms the "context binding" to the Win32 design approach was very poor.

      Interestingly, MS Word for Windows 1.0 ALSO had a pretty horrible implementation of the Win32 GUI, however it was somewhat cleaner, and somewhat faster.

      Leading to another observation;

      WordPerfect for Windows 6 WAS SLOOOOOW, real, real slow. large document saves were "go get a cup of coffee slow".

      WinWord 1 was also somewhat porky (i personally stayed with MS WORD DOS for a LONG TIME, much faster, much more stable, from a BSofD perspective - i also had written nearly 300 macros that really couldn't be translated easily/well to WinWord).

      so, if WPW6 was all/mostly written in assembler, -- WPW6 was SO SLOW, i'd guess that it was either badly written, or rather badly optimized -- making me wonder if all/parts were written to the Win32S API (what a train wreck THAT was), and also wondering what assembler WP used????

      -- in those days the first round of Win32, the first version or two of MASM wasn't all that much more powerful than "Debug", i still occasionally use MASM 5/6 to knock out quick small drivers and some CODEC work, and as i recall from the time (VERY FOGGILY), IFF TASM was around (and many of MS' competitors wouldn't TOUCH MASM), early TASM never really performed for me (or my friends) on LARGE scale projects (it was VERY nicely fixed after the first/second version).

      I also seem to recall that it has already been legally established that MS has in/around this time period did indeed have "non-published" API features, particuarly used by the Excel teams in their "life and death" battle with the then spreadsheet market monopoly holder, "Lotus 1-2-3", and Andrew Schulman has written numerous books and articles on this aspect of early Win development.

      Lotus, i believe, having bet BIG on OS2/G (BTW, 1-2-3G ROCKED -- way ahead (2 years) of its time), came late to the Win32 party, and had to rush 1-2-3 Win out the door, using lots of source from OS2/G (not quite a port, but close) and the Oz2 -Win32 APIs were VERY different (Oz2 was in many ways much "cleaner" than the earliest W32 APIs).

      Ashcan Fate (down the street from my company) was imploding at the time, between the "religious" problems that were besetting the company's highest management, and the Big Bet (Failed) on Framework and that DTP program they were tussling with Ken Ski over, I would say Ashton-Tate died of self-inflicted wounds.

      While i certainly don't know the internals of WPW6, most of the senior corporate developer types i spoke to were not ready to put any large amount of developer resources into Win32 until it was market tested, most people at that time thought Oz2 would wipe Win32 out of the market, and many ISVs put their money down accordingly....

      And i completely agree, this suit serves NO ONE but, the attorneys, and Novell should leave it alone.

      What next? Should AT&T sue MITS and IMSAI for ripping off the OS approach and command verbs of UNIX????
      • On slashdot, it refreshing to hear from someone who knows who Phillipe Khan is.

        I don't disagree with anything you wrote. The OS/2 angle is a prime subject for another thread.

        I'll bet you $100 spacebucks that Microsoft misses the old days where they only had to fight OS2/Apple/DrDOS/etc.

        This Linux movement has thrown them into a frenzy.

        Enjoy,

  • Destruction of Evidence is very very risky (Score:3, Insightful)

    by UnapprovedThought ( 814205 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:05PM (#10849808) Journal

    Naturally, if the evidence is destroyed, there is no evidence to show that there was evidence, unless someone speaks up.

    But, the trouble with this approach is that somebody always saves evidence, either through sloppiness or because something gets written in the margins of a technical manual, etc. Thus, not everything gets shredded, so that this gambit has its risks.

    Even as we speak, there may be an MS employee, or former MS employee holding the key to all of this. This is pure speculation of course, but maybe the reason Novell is on this trail is because it knows such a person. Even if that person has signed all the NDA forms in the world, such a person might still be willing to come forward in exchange for some immunity.

  • what made office the de facto program wasn't anything done by microsoft, but rather what they didn't do. they didn't really pursue pirating of office. they were strict with business workstations, but everyone i know got their copy of office from work. why you think they made officeXP need activation, for the home user, but not the coprorate version. as homer would say, DOH!! at my school disrtrict, there are damn near as many copies of office97 and office2000 burnt cd's as teachers. and it's not even
    • In the academic market:

      "Qualified Education Customers who have acquired licenses through Microsoft's Academic Volume Licensing programs may grant to their faculty and staff the right to use a second copy of a limited selection of products on either a home or portable computer for work-related purposes."

      "Work at Home Rights for Campus Agreement and School Agreement customers are available for all application, system, and CAL products at no extra cost." Work at Home Rights [microsoft.com] (last updated Nov. 11, 2004)

  • MS also kneecapped and took Corel private (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Bullard ( 62082 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @12:28AM (#10850754) Homepage
    Corel used to love Linux and their WordPerfect Office and sheer consumer-level name recognition was potentially huge threat to Microsoft until Redmond bought their way into Corel three years ago and within months a Microsoft-friendly consultancy, McKinsey & Partners, helped Corel commit a strategic U-turn to support the non-existing .NET 100%.

    Fast forward to late 2002 when Corel "mistakenly" launched a somewhat successful EOM drive to get WPO preloaded and in December that year MS co-founder Paul Allen's venture capital firm Vector, operated by former MS (and McKinsey) executives, snapped up the MS-owned 20% of Corel shares at absolute giveaway prices and immediately began bullying Corel's management to sell the whole shop...

    Corel's CEO Derek Burney was a spineless lackey and their chairman Jim Baillie was a lawyer who's law firm in fact represented the Microsoft's friends Vector in the takeover bid (!!) and by blatantly manipulating the shareholder informing and voting procedure they narrowly won the "vote" and pulled Corel out of the public view and scrutiny during the 2003 summer holidays.

    Groklaw folks with their investigative abilities could well have a field day reopening the Microsoft-orchestrated Corel undertaking manoeuvre, especially as Novell is suing Microsoft over their anticompetitive manipulation of the cash-cow segment Office suites market. As most people here know, it was Corel who bought WordPerfect Office from Novell in 1996, inheriting the MS-enemy #1 status along with it.

    FWIW, the above-mentioned Jim Baillie was instrumental in Corel's decision not to sue MS after the US government won the closely-related Netscape antitrust trial, as the owners of the then #1 competitor to MS-Office, over unfair antitrust manipulation.

    Godspeed Novell. I only hope Corel's kneecapping will help you prove you case and take MS to the cleaners.

  • Lets talk about Word (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jamesl ( 106902 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @12:59AM (#10850943)
    Chris Pratley, a Microsoft insider, recently wrote about the competitive environment, product development and MS Word vs WordPerfect ca. 1995. Take a few minutes to read his http://blogs.msdn.com/chris_pratley/archive/2004/0 4/27/120944.aspx/ [msdn.com] blog entry for background.
  • Novell takes $2BN and settles the case.

    Honestly, the only company that I believe has the resources to see through a case against Microsoft to the bitter end is Oracle.

  • Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by buss_error ( 142273 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @07:52AM (#10852496) Homepage Journal
    ...may be valuable for proving anti-competitive intent on Microsoft's behalf should MS (or a proxy) go on a patent rampage against FOSS.

    Microsoft is already going on that rampage. Evidence ripped from this month's headlines: See SPF & (without patents) SCOX.

    Microsoft has repeatly stated that they intend to rampage with patents. The only question is should SlashDot document it.
    Answer: No.

    PJ of Groklaw is a hobby site without any ads. Slashdot isn't. The liability of a suit against /. is much greater than the same suit against PJ. PJ isn't doing it for the money. MS could argue /. is, and would be putting every post under the microscope to crush, coverup, and destroy evey bit of evidence posted to public view. Count on it. If they tried that with GrokLaw, MS couldn't show any monitary advantage to GrokLaw for doing so, and PJ should know enough to avoid posting in a way that would likely result in a suit.

    /. is about technology. GrokLaw is about technology law suits. Let each do what they do best.

    But I don't see any reason why the tender tidbits posted at GrokLaw couldn't be discussed on SlashDot.

Slashdot Top Deals

Most public domain software is free, at least at first glance.

Close