Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #2519 > unrolled thread

Novell is dead. Long Live Novell

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Novell is dead. Long Live Novell Rob <meer5tt@privacy.net> - 2014-04-29 04:57 -0700
    Re: Novell is dead. Long Live Novell RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-04-29 17:14 +0000
    Re: Novell is dead. Long Live Novell chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-29 12:23 -0500
      Re: Novell is dead. Long Live Novell JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-04-29 13:28 -0500
        Re: Novell is dead. Long Live Novell gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-11-10 04:22 +0000
          Re: Novell is dead. Long Live Novell Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-09 21:32 -0700
          Re: Novell is dead. Long Live Novell chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-10 08:11 -0600
    Google has done what Novell couldn't.  Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-04-29 13:53 -0700
    Re: Novell is dead. Long Live Novell K Wills <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2014-04-30 04:08 -0500
      Re: Novell is dead. Long Live Novell Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-04-30 12:14 +0100
        Re: Novell is dead. Long Live Novell JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-04-30 12:17 -0500
      Re: Novell is dead. Long Live Novell chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-30 07:01 -0500

#2519 — Novell is dead. Long Live Novell

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/04/28/usa-court-software-idINL2N0NH0Y420140428


U.S. top court declines to hear Microsoft antitrust case
Mon, Apr 28 2014

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday brought
an end to Novell Inc's antitrust claims against Microsoft Corp that date
back 20 years to the development of Windows 95 software.

By declining to hear Novell's appeal, the court left intact a 10th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from September 2013 in favor of Microsoft.

The court of appeals unanimously affirmed the dismissal of Novell Inc's
claims that Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act when it decided
not to share its intellectual property while developing its Windows 95
operating system.

Novell was seeking more than $3 billion.

Since the 1990s, Microsoft has been pursued by government prosecutors,
consumers and competitors for alleged antitrust violations when it was
widely considered a mighty monopolist.

The Novell case, which was first filed in 2004, was over Microsoft's
decision not to share with Novell details about its Windows operating
system. Novell claimed that its suite of applications, including
WordPerfect, suffered as a result of Microsoft withholding the
information.

Novell alleged that Microsoft used its market power in operating systems
to promote its own applications.

In a 2011 trial, a jury could not come to a verdict, but afterward U.S.
District Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore, who oversaw consolidated
proceedings against Microsoft, ruled in favor of the software giant.

Novell appealed Motz's ruling to the 10th Circuit but the court affirmed
Motz's ruling, finding that Microsoft was under no obligation to share
sensitive information with a competitor.

The case is Novell v. Microsoft, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-1042.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Andrew Longstreth;
Editing by Howard Goller and Alden Bentley)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2524

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 04:57:23 -0700
Rob <meer5tt@privacy.net> wrote:

> Novell appealed Motz's ruling to the 10th Circuit but the court affirmed
> Motz's ruling, finding that Microsoft was under no obligation to share
> sensitive information with a competitor.
> 
> The case is Novell v. Microsoft, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-1042.
> (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Andrew Longstreth;
> Editing by Howard Goller and Alden Bentley)

The Register has a hilarious take on it too.  Still, imagine what the
world would be like if Novell had won?  Billions of dollars in
settlement?  On a lark, I downloaded and installed WordPerfect late
last year - a free trial, or something.  I really disliked it.  I
really detest Microsoft Word, and the ribbon makes me manic.  I think
O365 is utter crapola.  But amazingly and to my surprise, I was not
tempted to try to get to know WordPerfect instead.  Forget the $300
price tag (or whatever; it was expensive and that price is about
right).  I found the menus disorienting, the functionality out of date,
and the software surprisingly not useful.  

Actually, now that I think about it: imagine with all that new cash,
Novell decides to buy SUSE Linux again.  I'd slit my wrists - spinning
off SUSE to Attachmate is one of the best things that happened to my
favorite Linux distro in the 21st century.  It really kind of stagnated
under Novell.  So thank $DEITY Novell was denied that pile-o-cash.

//--snip
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/28/victory_for_microsoft_as_supremes_decline_to_hear_novells_wordperfect_whine/

Victory for Microsoft as Supremes decline to hear Novell's WordPerfect
whine The Windows 95 case that wouldn't die is finally snuffed out
By Iain Thomson, 28 Apr 2014  

The decade-long legal fight over the reasons WordPerfect failed has
ended in victory for Microsoft after the US Supreme Court declined to
hear Novell's appeal and shut the door on a potential billion-dollar
settlement for the company. 
//--snip

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2525

Rob wrote:

>In a 2011 trial, a jury could not come to a verdict, but afterward U.S.
>District Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore, who oversaw consolidated
>proceedings against Microsoft, ruled in favor of the software giant.

Not all immoral, unfair behavior is illegal.  It's impossible to
legislate against all of the dirty tricks that a company in
Micro$oft's position is capable of.

-- 
"Unless LAWS are being broken then there is no wrong doing."  -
trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2528

On 2014-04-29, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
>>In a 2011 trial, a jury could not come to a verdict, but afterward U.S.
>>District Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore, who oversaw consolidated
>>proceedings against Microsoft, ruled in favor of the software giant.
>
> Not all immoral, unfair behavior is illegal.  It's impossible to
> legislate against all of the dirty tricks that a company in
> Micro$oft's position is capable of.

    Anti-Trust goes way back and was originally instigated by a Republican.

-- 
	Sophocles wants his cut.                                |||
                                                               / | \

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5595

In article <slrnllvrpj.oa6.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
JEDIDIAH  <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>On 2014-04-29, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Rob wrote:
>>
>>>In a 2011 trial, a jury could not come to a verdict, but afterward U.S.
>>>District Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore, who oversaw consolidated
>>>proceedings against Microsoft, ruled in favor of the software giant.
>>
>> Not all immoral, unfair behavior is illegal.  It's impossible to
>> legislate against all of the dirty tricks that a company in
>> Micro$oft's position is capable of.
>
>    Anti-Trust goes way back and was originally instigated by a Republican.

Yes, but...

Abe Lincoln was a Republican.

T. Roosevelt was a Republican.

Barry Goldwater was a Republican.

Heck, even Ronald Reagan was a Republican.

None of these guys bear any resemblance to the current Republican party or
its members.

-- 

Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts
have no place in organized religion.
 -- Superintendent Chalmers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5596

On 11/9/14, 9:22 PM, in article m3peh8$7f4$1@news.xmission.com, "Kenny
McCormack" <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:

> In article <slrnllvrpj.oa6.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> JEDIDIAH  <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> On 2014-04-29, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> Rob wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In a 2011 trial, a jury could not come to a verdict, but afterward U.S.
>>>> District Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore, who oversaw consolidated
>>>> proceedings against Microsoft, ruled in favor of the software giant.
>>> 
>>> Not all immoral, unfair behavior is illegal.  It's impossible to
>>> legislate against all of the dirty tricks that a company in
>>> Micro$oft's position is capable of.
>> 
>>    Anti-Trust goes way back and was originally instigated by a Republican.
> 
> Yes, but...
> 
> Abe Lincoln was a Republican.
> 
> T. Roosevelt was a Republican.
> 
> Barry Goldwater was a Republican.
> 
> Heck, even Ronald Reagan was a Republican.
> 
> None of these guys bear any resemblance to the current Republican party or
> its members.

The Republicans used to be the more liberal party... pushing for equal
rights, reasonable controls to stop business from limiting the power of
individuals, etc. They used to be a decent and respectable party... now they
are simply evil. Democrats are also paid for and beholden to wealth, but at
least they put some effort into helping to balance the power of the wealthy.


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5603

Kenny McCormack wrote:

> JEDIDIAH  wrote:
>>
>>    Anti-Trust goes way back and was originally instigated by a Republican.
>
>Yes, but...
>
>Abe Lincoln was a Republican.
>
>T. Roosevelt was a Republican.
>
>Barry Goldwater was a Republican.
>
>Heck, even Ronald Reagan was a Republican.
>
>None of these guys bear any resemblance to the current Republican party or
>its members.

They're the best that money can buy, man!

-- 
"Without windows all the glaring weaknesses if Linux would become as
apparent to you as they are to the others of us."  -  "True Linux
advocate" Hadron Quark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2531 — Google has done what Novell couldn't. 

<PRE Style='White-Space: PRE !important; Font-Size: 18px !important;Font-Family: monospace !important;'> 
For decades now, Novell has been losing
both in the market place and in court.
Meanwhile, Google has done what they couldn't.

Basically, they failed to profit from
the desktop, cell phone and internet explosion.
Too busy making Mormon·Style babies, I assume.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2533

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 04:57:23 -0700, Rob <meer5tt@privacy.net> wrote:

>http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/04/28/usa-court-software-idINL2N0NH0Y420140428
>
>
>U.S. top court declines to hear Microsoft antitrust case
>Mon, Apr 28 2014
>
>By Lawrence Hurley
>
>WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday brought
>an end to Novell Inc's antitrust claims against Microsoft Corp that date
>back 20 years to the development of Windows 95 software.
>
>By declining to hear Novell's appeal, the court left intact a 10th U.S.
>Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from September 2013 in favor of Microsoft.
>
>The court of appeals unanimously affirmed the dismissal of Novell Inc's
>claims that Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act when it decided
>not to share its intellectual property while developing its Windows 95
>operating system.
>

     I freely admit I'm not a lawyer, so I could be way off here. 
     I can see no reason any company would be required to share its
intellectual property with any other company.

>Novell was seeking more than $3 billion.
>
>Since the 1990s, Microsoft has been pursued by government prosecutors,
>consumers and competitors for alleged antitrust violations when it was
>widely considered a mighty monopolist.

     Windows was, and probably is, the most widely used OS. However,
there are many others. 

>
>The Novell case, which was first filed in 2004, was over Microsoft's
>decision not to share with Novell details about its Windows operating
>system. Novell claimed that its suite of applications, including
>WordPerfect, suffered as a result of Microsoft withholding the
>information.
>

     Maybe not the best move on MS's part, but I don't see an
anti-trust complaint.

>Novell alleged that Microsoft used its market power in operating systems
>to promote its own applications.
>

     I don't recall any promotions for MS apps back in the days of WIN
95. It was almost 20 years ago, so it's possible my memory may have
atrophied.
     I have a fuzzy memory for some print adds for Word during the
time of WIN 98.

>In a 2011 trial, a jury could not come to a verdict, but afterward U.S.
>District Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore, who oversaw consolidated
>proceedings against Microsoft, ruled in favor of the software giant.
>
>Novell appealed Motz's ruling to the 10th Circuit but the court affirmed
>Motz's ruling, finding that Microsoft was under no obligation to share
>sensitive information with a competitor.

     Calling Novell a competitor may be a bit much. I don't think it
ever made an OS. And if I'm understanding correctly, the heart of the
complaint is in regards to the WIN 95 OS.

>
>The case is Novell v. Microsoft, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-1042.
>(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Andrew Longstreth;
>Editing by Howard Goller and Alden Bentley)


-- 
Aibohphobia: The fear of palindromes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2539

On 30/04/14 10:08, K Wills wrote:

>       Calling Novell a competitor may be a bit much. I don't think it
> ever made an OS. And if I'm understanding correctly, the heart of the
> complaint is in regards to the WIN 95 OS.


Although it was a specialist (limited) OS, can you really discount Netware?

if you go back to the 90's, Netware was doing filesharing and related 
services actually extremely well - MS had no real solution and NFS was 
not very PC friendly (but did exist).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2545

On 2014-04-30, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
> On 30/04/14 10:08, K Wills wrote:
>
>>       Calling Novell a competitor may be a bit much. I don't think it
>> ever made an OS. And if I'm understanding correctly, the heart of the
>> complaint is in regards to the WIN 95 OS.
>
>
> Although it was a specialist (limited) OS, can you really discount Netware?
>
> if you go back to the 90's, Netware was doing filesharing and related 
> services actually extremely well - MS had no real solution and NFS was 
> not very PC friendly (but did exist).

    The whole "active directory" thing was done by Novell first. They also
sold an alternative to DOS. So yeah, they were pretty much direct competitors
to Microsoft in the early days.

    They may have been less visible to "consumers" because pretty much anythingt
that's not a consumer toy is going to be invisible to consumers. They don't see
it, therefore it doesn't/never existed.

-- 
	On the subject of kilobyte being "redefined" to mean 1000 bytes...

        When I was a wee lad, I was taught that SI units were        |||
        meant to be computationally convenient rather than just     / | \
	arbitrarily assigned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2541

K Wills wrote:

>     I freely admit I'm not a lawyer, so I could be way off here. 
>     I can see no reason any company would be required to share its
>intellectual property with any other company.

I don't know the details of the case, but the rules do change, once a
company achieves an "unhealthy" amount of dominance in a market.  If,
for example, you have secret networking protocols that can lock-out
any potential competitor.

Behavior that is A-OK in a normal, healthy market can become abusive,
under certain conditions.  This can require government intervention to
correct.  It's not ideal, but is sometimes needed to prevent
monopolization of a market.

And, no, "monopolization" or "unhealthy market dominance" do not
require the absolute absence of alternative products.  Clearly,
allowing abusive behavior to resume, the moment a glimmer of
alternative appeared, with regulation resuming only when that
alternative was dead, would not work very well.

-- 
'I realise you're a bit "special", but if (Microsoft has) a monopoly
how come you claim to use Linux?'  -  "Hadron", defending his masters
in Redmond

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web