Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCOTUS Ends Novell's Anti-Trust Cast Against Microsoft

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the end-of-the-line dept.

The Courts 174

walterbyrd (182728) writes in with news about the end of the line for a Novell anti-trust claim against Microsoft. "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."

cancel ×

174 comments

way to over simplify the issue win the summery (5, Informative)

thaylin (555395) | about 3 months ago | (#46861163)

There was more to it than just not sharing its IP, such as deliberately misleading the company, and changing the APIs mid stream to break interoperability.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (4, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | about 3 months ago | (#46861239)

I'm not surprised by this ruling at all. The current Supreme Court is very friendly towards businesses acting badly.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (1, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 3 months ago | (#46861431)

The current Supreme Court is very friendly towards businesses acting badly.

The current Supreme Court is very friendly towards businesses paying them well.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#46861555)

Wow... and here I though both litigants were multibillion dollar businesses.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46862057)

WERE being the key word. Novell's parent, Attachmate Group is only $1.2B

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46862081)

Wow... and here I though both litigants were multibillion dollar businesses.

Microsoft is a giant compared to Novell. Anyone who's not a shill, moron or Microsoft apologist understands that. Maybe you want to find a high school student and match them up against UFC heavyweight.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 months ago | (#46862521)

Back when Novell started the litigation, they were pretty huge as well.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46862115)

Microsoft is a very old and established enormous corporation. Microsoft has behind it decades and literally hundreds of billions of dollars of lobbying efforts. Political donations to both established parties combined with the politicized nature in the selection of judges and you got yourself a favorable judicial system.

In Europe, it's mostly illegal for any business to directly donate to any political party. The parties are often funded directly from tax revenue in relation to their seats in the parliament. This is to keep them and legislative processes non-biased and democratic.

It would be impossible to think either the Democrats or Republicans would want to change the current system. The only way out towards a non-oligarchic government is to vote for more parties into Congress. Be it left, right, center or whatever, the fact that more parties are included in legislative processes, makes it helluva more transparent.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46862707)

The parties are often funded directly from tax revenue in relation to their seats in the parliament.

Imagine how much inertia this creates. Mind officially blown.

"Where we going today?"
"Same place we went yesterday."

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46862065)

Any evidence of Supreme Court justices taking kickbacks from litigants?

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#46862147)

On Slashdot, all accusations against government officials are deemed to be true. Evidence is not required.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (4, Funny)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 3 months ago | (#46862253)

On Slashdot, all accusations against government officials are deemed to be true. Evidence is not required.

Yeah, but they pretty much are... oh, wait, I see what you did there.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46862099)

Are you saying that members of the Supreme Court are accepting bribes? Or just what are you saying?

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (1)

jandrese (485) | about 3 months ago | (#46862543)

That the current supreme court's decisions almost invariably side with the bigger business currently. By the way, Aereo is fucked.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | about 3 months ago | (#46862705)

The current Supreme Court is very friendly towards businesses paying them well.

Bribery remains the geek's all-purpose explanation for any legal or political decision he doesn't like. It's a sign of laziness if not impotence.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (2, Insightful)

lord_mike (567148) | about 3 months ago | (#46861615)

They ruled unanimously against the NFL in their antitrust suit. This SCOTUS is very business friendly, but they aren't monolithic.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (2, Informative)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 3 months ago | (#46861697)

I'm not surprised by this ruling at all. The current Supreme Court is very friendly towards businesses acting badly.

What ruling? They declined to hear the case because there isn't a constitutional challenge.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (3, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | about 3 months ago | (#46862177)

I'm not surprised by this ruling at all. The current Supreme Court is very friendly towards businesses acting badly.

The Supreme Court is interested only in cases which offer the best opportunity to debate and decide substantial issues of federal constitutional law. The court receives around 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year. Seventy to eighty will go on to oral argument,

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (5, Informative)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 months ago | (#46861241)

That phrase has quite a lot of bogus spin attached to it. They take something pretty mundane and turn it completely inside out. Based on the phrase as stated, you would think that Novell was expecting Microsoft to give up all of it's trade secrets when all it was really expecting was the details of a standard public interface.

This is just one of the many bad side effects of an overly expansive notion of "intellectual property" and of corporate privelege in general.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (2)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 3 months ago | (#46861365)

This is just one of the many bad side effects of an overly expansive notion of "intellectual property" and of corporate privelege in general.

You jumped to a pretty big conclusion there.

I think it's more applicable to say that this had more to do with Microsoft's ability to drag the case as long as possible and SCOTUS having little incentive to review a case that spans two decades with a dead product on one side and a dead corporation on the other.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (1, Interesting)

Your.Master (1088569) | about 3 months ago | (#46861661)

I don't understand. If the interface was public, then by definition its details were shared. If there were details that were not shared, then those details were never part of the public interface contract, again by definition.

Is the problem that they didn't share the public interfaces with them with appropriate timing, or that they *thought* it should be a public interface when it wasn't, or something else I'm not getting?

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (-1, Troll)

unrtst (777550) | about 3 months ago | (#46861929)

Your uid is too high. Go read up on it.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#46862173)

This case is significantly older than Slashdot. Is 700k really a braggable UID now?

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 3 months ago | (#46862311)

I'd make a snide comment about kids these days, but some 3- or 4-digit UID is going to just put me in my place.

That sad thing about the whole "public interface" issue is that the damage was irrevocably done long before Windows 95 was made. By 1995, Microsoft had so cemented their dominance that no remediation by the courts would have made a difference... and of course, the courts and the DoJ ended up letting them off with a slap on the wrist.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861965)

or something else I'm not getting?

From the end of the actual trial. [theinquirer.net]
Apparently, WordPerfect for Windows 3.11 was not compatible with Windows 95. Novell was outraged that Microsoft did not retain whatever it was that WordPerfect required exactly how it was in 3.11. Novell asserted that Microsoft broke compatibility solely to give MSWord a headstart on Windows 95 systems, that changing unpublished system APIs had no other possible benefit for an operating system.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (5, Informative)

Sun (104778) | about 3 months ago | (#46861995)

The Novel narrative is this:
Microsoft shared the interface with Novel during the beta, encouraging it to rely on it. Then, a few months before release, and after WordPerfect was already dependent on those interfaces, Microsoft changed them and declined to share the new ones with Novel. When Windows 95 finally came out, MS did, in fact, publish those interfaces, but by then it was too late for Novel to ship WordPerfect with Windows 95's launch.

Had MS not shared those interfaces to begin with, Novel could have worked with an internal implementation.

Shachar

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46862523)

I don't understand. If the interface was public, then by definition its details were shared.

Microsoft released the details of the public API. Then they changed the API, without letting anyone outside Microsoft know of the changes to the still supposedly public API. Nothing difficult to understand there.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (5, Insightful)

hAckz0r (989977) | about 3 months ago | (#46862039)

No, what they did was to dup Novell into developing a complex product using an API that they provided, but planned on changing at the 12th hour to defeat their competition out of the gate. Their goal was to make Novell look so bad in the eyes of the consumer that nobody would ever trust the product again. This is pure maliciousness and way over the top. Its one thing to simply not give information, its entirely another to mislead and make your competition do what you tell them, and then change it so that it is guaranteed not to work.

.
Bottom line: If you shake hands with Bill Gates you had better count your fingers.

re: duping the competition (1)

King_TJ (85913) | about 3 months ago | (#46862645)

I'd agree with you about that behavior being malicious and "over the top" ... but then there's the question of whether or not it was legal. That's really all the court system is supposed to determine. It might be a fine line, but ultimately, I think the courts did the right thing here.

If you volunteer information to a competitor and then it turns out the info you provided was bogus ... it was still information you VOLUNTEERED. There would be a clear legal case here if Novell signed a deal to PAY for this information from Microsoft, and it turned out they received bad info because of a willful intent to mislead and fail to live up to the terms of the contract.

This whole scenario is really not one you'd expect would play out the same way today, either. These days, interoperability has a net benefit to all parties involved. If Microsoft (for example) makes a concerted effort to ensure Linux or BSD or a Mac running OS X can't connect properly to its shared files and folders, it just makes itself look like a less attractive option. (If I have Macs on my network, or a BSD based FreeNAS or what-not, I'm just as likely to start trying to eliminate my Windows clients or servers from the environment as I am my NAS server or Mac clients, if this issue causes me hassles.)

Regardless, at the time, Novell went from "the only game in town" for a reliable server product to a costly option that was beginning to look like it might not be worth continuing to pay for. Hindsight is 20-20, obviously ... but if I was calling the shots at Novell back then, I would have probably tried to lock in a paid contractual arrangement to obtain access to Microsoft's APIs for networking, since that was very much key to my product's future success.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery (1)

alen (225700) | about 3 months ago | (#46861611)

to be fair, anything before Windows 95/NT4 was such crap you had to change API's to make the OS somewhat useful

Casting Away (2)

WiiVault (1039946) | about 3 months ago | (#46861243)

What kind of "cast" did they use? Is there a new spell-book that us magicians can buy that where we can learn a spell to make /. editors proofread articles?

Re:Casting Away (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861425)

ValuableCampaignContributor* p_victim static_cast<CorporateCriminal*>(p_microsoft);

Don't forget the NULL check, though.

Re:Casting Away (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861493)

Sounds like someone needs to pay attention in civics class and stay off slashdot for a while.

1) Supreme court judges are appointed not elected.

2) Supreme court judges pretty much have the job for life.

It's the slashdot reversal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861483)

In the reddit, magicians cast spells.
        In slashdot, variables are cast by hackers!

The end of our industry (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861275)

The Republicans have finally achieved their goal of killing the software industry. Now, only Microsoft can write software for Windows. Time to start looking for a plumbing job. It sucks to see the Republicans destroy this country like this.

Re:The end of our industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861303)

I really don't think this is as big of a political issue as you say. If people cannot get their software to run on Windows, they will need to switch to OSX or Linux. Windows therefore has an incentive to not just change things without a reason.

Re:The end of our industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861383)

I am a card-carrying TEA party member, and I use primarily Linux / Apple. God bless the USA and why the fuck do I have to pay for your slobbering kids to go to school?

Re:The end of our industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861589)

I don't mind paying for kids to go to school. Why?

1: If they have jobs, they are not on the street vandalizing my car or robbing me.

2: Education gives them meaningful wages, so the economy sucks less.

3: Education may teach critical thinking so they might just see past the bread and circuses of today.

4: Education might give them the ability to innovate. I'm sure you are tired of Japan, China, and other countries having the cool stuff and we don't.

I'm a practical conservative. I don't eat my seed corn, and believe that with proper public schools (hint... not Common Core, and teaching things like dealing with confrontations, firearms [1], and other life skills) are a must, if the US is going to continue.

I've even thought of going with a voucher system... but that would replace failed public schools with failing corporations running private schools.

[1]: Better the kids know the reality of them than what their favorite gangsta rapper "teaches".

Re:The end of our industry (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 3 months ago | (#46861651)

There is no problem with common core itself, just with some of the implementation of it in some areas.

Re:The end of our industry (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 3 months ago | (#46861693)

There is no problem with common core itself, just with some of the implementation of it in some areas.

Yea, yea, sure, Melinda. Your corporate-robot-factory standards are just fine, then, but some bureaucrat messed it up for you?

Re:The end of our industry (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861733)

Stop being a dick just for the sake of being a dick. If you don't want your kids measured up against mine, perhaps you should have had smarter kids.

Re:The end of our industry (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 3 months ago | (#46861801)

What is wrong with saying a 2nd grader should know x before moving on to the 3rd grade, and a 3rd grader should know y, before moving to the 4th grade, and so on?

If I wanted to use the mirror to your logical fallacy I might say you just want students to be passed up no matter what they know?

But I wont, ill just ask you, what is wrong with the STANDARDS THEMSELVES?

And please do not come up with the usual list of proven incorrect statements, such as teachers not being involved in the standards themselves

Re:The end of our industry (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 3 months ago | (#46862833)

What is wrong with saying a 2nd grader should know x before moving on to the 3rd grade, and a 3rd grader should know y, before moving to the 4th grade, and so on?

That's not really a good description of common core - it doesn't really do that. States can impose certain testing requirements on top of it, optionally, like Virginia's Standards of Learning (SOL), but you won't find any kind of requirement for "knowing" any objective facts in the Common Core.

But I wont, ill just ask you, what is wrong with the STANDARDS THEMSELVES? And please do not come up with the usual list of proven incorrect statements, such as teachers not being involved in the standards themselves.

That's a pretty big topic. The Common Core advocates seem to do a lot of marketing around their process for creating the standards, which includes taking a lot of existing standards (really bad ones), and pretending they're worthy of expanding upon.

I'll bring up a few of the basic issues and let you research more yourself.

Seventy-two CEOs hailing from corporations that usually like to stay out of the political fray, including Harley-Davidson, General Mills and Xerox, placed a full-page ad in the New York Times claiming that the curriculum will meet the “business community’s expectations.” That should tell you something right there: Are these companies interested in educating Americans to pursue their highest potential, or in creating a workforce beholden to the Corporate ladder?

The fundamental theme of Common Core’s English language arts (ELA) standards is a focus on non-fiction “informational texts.” The ELA standards were fashioned so that elementary students read no more than 50 percent classic literature and high school students may read only 30 percent classic literature. The other 70 percent is comprised of informational texts. The curriculum advocates a “close reading” of a text in which students are asked to analyze what they’ve read strictly from the available text without a whiff of historical context. This method teaches students to accept the information that they are given without question. It's an indoctrination technique writ large, through years of barraging students with lesson plans produced by government bureaucracies.

You can also check out some of the writing by Carol Burris [washingtonpost.com] , an award-winning educator that was a big proponent of Common Core until she started seeing the ugly details. Very enlightening.

Have you seen how they are teaching math under the Common Core now? The premise is that students should learn "estimating" instead of math or number theory. I guess that makes sense if you're a bureaucrat dealing with multi-million dollar budgets - as long as you're within 1 or 2% you're good. But that's not really good enough if you're trying to really learn the core principles. You should see if this makes any sense to you [huffingtonpost.com] as a way to teach 5th graders math. I don't think it does.

You'll probably dismiss these issues as "growing pains" and issues that can be fixed over time. But we should not be experimenting on our children this way. Or they won't be able to contribute anything to the next generation of learners.

Re:The end of our industry (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 3 months ago | (#46862391)

And if we had good public education in this country that would be a good plan. The problem is that by Federalizing the education system, we've only been spreading the pain... and most large inner cities still have third-world level education systems. Mississippi brags at least they aren't Louisiana and Louisiana still brags at least they aren't Mississippi. A majority of the public still believes in astrology. To listen to a lot of people the country's leading biochemist is Jenny McCarthy. And the average voter can't explain how our government works at a 6th grade Civics class level.

The voucher system at least offers the potential for competition, something that doesn't exist today at the primary or secondary levels unless you are in the top 5-10% income bracket and can afford private school.

Re:The end of our industry (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861547)

Just recently, Microsoft did a study into why the best programmers don't have jobs while the morons, that are almost always married, had jobs and often worked at large companies like Microsoft. One reason here in Seattle is because of the Republican-created tax system that screws developers. An unmarried developer pays three times as much in taxes as a stupid married couple:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/25/pf/taxes/parents-singles-federal-taxes/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Just look at how the smartest males are shunned by females because so many of them have conservative leanings. They don't want smart, independent guys that will treat them well so they instead flock to Republicans that will abuse them. The Republicans are why the software industry was destroyed here in Seattle. Charging us three times as much taxes just to live means we won't.

Re:The end of our industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861671)

The "software industry" is an over-bloated sack of shit that rivals the dot-com bust. The quicker it collapses and starts fresh, the better.

I'm a card-carrying member of the DNC.

Re:The end of our industry (0)

ganjadude (952775) | about 3 months ago | (#46861731)

are you serious here? there is so much wrong with that statement its not even funny. first off, who are the people fighting for less taxes? the libertarians, tea party and a handful republicans. Who wants more taxes and higher taxes? the democrats.

If you want an actual solution, do away with the IRS and institute a fair or flat tax.

Re:The end of our industry (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 3 months ago | (#46861745)

How is a flat tax fair? I used to think it was, but then realized how it actually hurts the poor even more than the current tax structure. I am all for lower taxes, but the problem is neither side wants to give up their toys to make it happen, they just want the other sides toys to go away.

Re:The end of our industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46862393)

Do you expect anything more from someone who calls himself "ganjadude"?

His libertarian tendencies result from his need to be left alone to smoke his pot.

Re:The end of our industry (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 3 months ago | (#46862987)

im not saying one is better than the other just that the current way of doing this is bad. Id be for a consumption tax, where all FINISHED goods are taxed , supply line products (componants, unfinished wood etc would not be) and only charge a tax based on consumption. If you own a jet, you get taxed more than if you own a car. you dont own are car? you get taxed even less. Roll ALL taxes into the final sales and leave it at that.

The current tax structure is unsustainable, even to the pro tax and spend crowd and the less taxes are better crowd, we have to start over and the best first step should be abolish the IRS

Re:The end of our industry (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 3 months ago | (#46862309)

It looks like you fell for the old Republicans versus Democrats ruse. Like a college football rivalry, you don't pay attention to the details but instead root for the home team while yelling disparaging remarks about the other team. Using this way of thinking, you believe every stereotype given and you are in danger of endorsing or discrediting an legislative initiative based solely is it was sponsored by a republican or a democrat.

Republicans love taxes just as much as democrats. The main difference between the two parties could be boiled down to who pays the taxes and what the government spends the money on.

Republicans prefer that the working class pay the majority of the taxes and government spend its money on national defense and corporate subsidies.This redistributes the money from the working class to the wealthy via government contracts and outright corporate welfare. They justify this by using the "job creator" story. Unfortunately its been shown that most of the new employers are small businesses whose owners aren't in the wealthy class. The wealthy do spend money but trickle down economics doesn't take globalization in consideration and therefore most of the currency is exported in exchange for cheaper goods. The wealthy tend to be more libertarian since they are self sufficient and view regulations as a cost with little benefit.

Democrats differ slightly on taxation since they want the wealthy to pay their "fair share" of the tax burden and want to lessen the tax burden on the lowest income brackets. They favor government spending on social programs and enforcement of environmental, safety and financial regulations. This sort of redistributes the money from the wealthy to the working class. Since in theory the wealthy pay more taxes and the poor receive more government benefits. Also the working class benefit from safer and cleaner working conditions and from cleaner conditions at home with safer places to place their money.

A political system with a healthy political discourse usually moderates between the two extremes. Unfortunately the vocal participants within the US political system are mainly the extremists of both parties and the public who can't be troubled with listening to anything more than a sound bite are reduced to cheering for their favorite team.

Re:The end of our industry (3, Interesting)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 3 months ago | (#46861797)

The Republicans are why the software industry was destroyed here in Seattle. http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/2... [cnn.com]

Too bad Seattle is such an Republican enclave - you should try to get more Democrats to move there if you prefer their tax policies.

Not that the article doesn't use some pretty skewed statistics. It compares the tax burden with 4 exemptions to that of 1. Hey, guess what, if you're supporting 1 person on 6 figures you pay more taxes than if you're supporting 4. That's what progressive taxes are supposed to do.

Re:The end of our industry (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 3 months ago | (#46862231)

I dunno whether you're being facetious - doesn't show in your post, but Seattle voted some 60+% for Dems election after election. They are essentially San Francisco, North. Republicans would be lucky to win votes for dog catcher in that city

Re:The end of our industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46862725)

One reason here in Seattle is because of the Republican-created tax system that screws developers

Yeah FDR was a well renowned republican...

Re:The end of our industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861551)

Same stupid troll post over and over. Don't you get tired of being called a moron?

Republicans? WTF? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | about 3 months ago | (#46861575)

I am not a republican myself. But, waas this court decision really decided by the republican party?

Re:Republicans? WTF? (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 3 months ago | (#46861861)

I am not a republican myself. But, waas this court decision really decided by the republican party?

Can't see how that connection could be made. The presiding chief judge in the 10th circuit decision was a Clinton appointee.

Re: Republicans? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861973)

Clinton was a DINO. Nearly everything he did, is doing, or will do is at the direction of the Republicans.

Re: Republicans? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46862813)

Clinton was a DINO. Nearly everything he did, is doing, or will do is at the direction of the Republican

Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Re:The end of our industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861683)

oh look, its Mr republicans are the cause of all of our problems. Heres a clue, get a life

What would this ruling have changed, today? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46861339)

Novell is practically nothing in comparison to what it once was in terms of company size and market presence. Even if the SCOTUS had overturned the ruling completely and found 100% in Novell's favor, what could that have possibly changed at this time?

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today? (5, Insightful)

thaylin (555395) | about 3 months ago | (#46861403)

I am not sure it is fully about the company when it gets to that level, but society in general. They are sanctioning MS's action and it tells these companies they can do those things and just drag out the case long enough that it no longer matters, just because they have more money.

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today? (2)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 3 months ago | (#46861527)

Dragging out a case is not new.

I don't think this case was worth the risk of SCOTUS setting an accidental precedence. I'd like to think that SCOTUS was thinking along the same lines.

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today? (1)

Teresita (982888) | about 3 months ago | (#46861645)

Dragging out a case is not new.

I don't think this case was worth the risk of SCOTUS setting an accidental precedence. I'd like to think that SCOTUS was thinking along the same lines.


Putting the SCO in SCOtus since 2004. Just ask Pamela Jones

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today? (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | about 3 months ago | (#46862623)

Accidental precedence or not accidental, it is clear that this SCOTUS does not really want to uphold any laws that they disagree with.

It is a corrupt group, almost always by a 5-4 margin.

Sherman Antitrust be damned, the fascists rule.

In their mind, world control is all that matters.

Case was a joke. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861635)

What kind of retardedness is it to expect one company to help another? There was no "monopoly" as there were provable alternatives. It was all a bunch of nonsense.

Fuck Novell, and fuck little Johnny Trustbusters. A real monopoly involves a physically limited resource that is critical to society. "Windows OS" was and is neither.

You can't conceivably argue I'm wrong, either, considering the current state of the market and Microsoft's much diminished power due to market changes.

And God Damn is Slashdot a piece of shit. What is wrong with the developers, the shit won't post like half the time. Ignores button clicks, whines about resources being changed, etc... Pure inept incompetence.

Re:Case was a joke. (3, Insightful)

thaylin (555395) | about 3 months ago | (#46861715)

Who said anything about expecting one company to help another out? What I except is that when I am working with a company they are not going to actively stab me in the back.In this case MS told them what they APIs were, then pulled it out from under them at the last second, to intentionally sink their product. If they would not have not given them the APIs there would not have been an issue, as then MS would not have been working with them and they could have developed something else, however by working with them and then pulling the APIs they intentionally sabotaged the product. By itself that still would not have been an issue, except they intentionally planned that.

As for a monopoly, there certainly was in the desktop, and the current state, after losing the antitrust and having to change practices, is not proof that there was not at the time.

Re:Case was a joke. (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46861865)

You can't conceivably argue I'm wrong, either, considering the current state of the market and Microsoft's much diminished power due to market changes.

Much diminished? The profits at Microsoft suggest otherwise. The lopsided distribution of platforms that code is written for does as well. The share of new PCs sold with windows on it may have diminished from 99% to 95% in the past 20 years; that is not reasonably "much diminished".

And I say this as a Linux user. I would love to say that far fewer PCs today are running Windows than were 20 years ago, but I know that is not true.

Re:Case was a joke. (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 3 months ago | (#46862415)

True, but when it comes to markets where Microsoft's monopoly couldn't help so much, phones and tablets, they aren't doing so well. Those markets show what happens when there's a more level playing field and Microsoft's market share is negligible in the mobile market. It might not stay that way, but they are currently way behind Apple, Google and others. That could not have happened in the PC world in the last 20 years.

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 months ago | (#46861839)

drag out the case long enough that it no longer matters, just because they have more money

So then this is basically the same as the Citizens United case, and many others that came before and after it? The law continuing to favor the wealthy is not news.

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861429)

Novell will one day rule the Earth. This is nothing but a tiny setback in their plans.

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 3 months ago | (#46861549)

Big red is now dead red.

a purchased court (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861373)

We have a SCOTUS full of corporate suckasses.

Re:a purchased court (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 3 months ago | (#46861891)

Corporation v. Corporation, SCOTUS decides in favor of Corporation.

"OMG the court is packed with corporate interests!!11!!one!!!eleventyone!!1!"

What?

Welcome to the New Oligarchy (3, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 3 months ago | (#46861439)

Same as the Old Oligarchy

We won't get fooled again

Meanwhile Google hasn't paid more than $1 billion in taxes to France, and almost all tech firms have done the same thing, not paying taxes to the US, based on legal fictions and tax havens (a fancy term for a way they can make the middle class pay for their infrastructure and legal protections without paying even 1/3 the tax rate you do).

Hippies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861591)

Google will pay all legally required taxes in France, and the US is one of the few dumbass countries with such a silly corporate taxation system so of course companies will try to get out of paying it. Eliminate corporate taxation (other that local/state taxes and taxes for resource use) and increase capital gains taxes and we would be much better off.

Instead, left wing dickholes like you _love_ the system because you can peddle flim-flam about "big mean corporations not paying taxes".

PS: This is attempt 2 to post this, because Slashdot is a complete piece of shit. Resource has changed, huh? You guys sure are competent, lolzers.

Re:Hippies. (3)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 3 months ago | (#46862111)

And what is wrong with Hippies? They were right. Was Vietnam a good war? Is making love not better than war?

If the taxes just came from capital gains, then you eliminate stocks and companies become privately owned -- or they trade stock in other countries. There's no one solution. Economic activity where money is made is where you tax.

Or we could just stop paying banks to make loans -- and just pay all the people, which I think is the only viable solution for a future where most labor gets replaced by robots.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 3 months ago | (#46861717)

Corporate tax is nothing but double taxation on shareholders, employees and indirectly customers of that corporation. US has the highest corporate taxes in the developed world, and corporations have duty to their shareholders to minimize that burden in whatever legal way possible.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861847)

Corporate tax is nothing but double taxation on shareholders, employees and indirectly customers of that corporation

Then don't incorporate.

What, you want the government to protect you from your mistakes and pretend the corporation is a separate entity when you screw up, but want it to pretend the corporation is not a separate entity when you want to withdraw your gains?

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 3 months ago | (#46862019)

No, I want that separate entity not to be taxed, or at least be taxed at a much lower rate than it is now. Even Obama wants to lower the corporate tax rate (39% on average federal+state) but it's difficult when his base is too stupid to realize that that money is ultimately coming out of their pockets.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 3 months ago | (#46862215)

Your comments are incredibly wrong.

"his base is too stupid to realize that that money is ultimately coming out of their pockets" -- The only thing I can reply to such a moronic statement is to pretend I'm talking to anyone who did NOT make such a statement. Cost of business comes out of profits. The market decides prices. Over time, if all companies have to pay the same tax -- it's a wash.

If we don't tax a company, there is no revenue to pay for anything -- and I don't get a discount on the happy meal. If we don't tax the company, who do we tax? Consumption, the worker, the land? Sales taxes are the most regressive and expensive to procure -- and of course the darling of people who don't live hand to mouth.

I just want to reiterate how annoying this think tank derived garbage is of "we can't tax businesses otherwise consumers pay". Because we already pay for more things out of pocket than we used to, and our country has less economic power than it used to.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46862505)

I agree. Remove the corporate tax rate and increase the income tax on capital gains and the high incomes of individuals in the company to make up the revenue. Get rid of the double-taxing confusion and just set them at the obvious point.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 3 months ago | (#46862137)

"double taxation" -- cry me a river. By this stupid accounting, I'm quintuple taxed and I'm just a poor working stiff if I'm lucky.

US has one of the lowest effective taxes on corporations. And many of the fortune 500 companies pay 5% or less. Now if you are a small startup - taxes might be high, but you're not paying attention to who runs things.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 3 months ago | (#46862249)

And many of the fortune 500 companies pay 5% or less. Now if you are a small startup - taxes might be high
 
So if the tax rate is lowered and loopholes closed and the tax code simplified as the Republicans have been proposing for a long time, the revenue might be higher and the small startups will pay less?

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy (0)

ewieling (90662) | about 3 months ago | (#46862389)

The USA has some of the highest statutory corporate tax rates. However, according to the GAO, their average effective tax rate after all the tax breaks is 12%, which is the lowest since 1972.

The anti-government nutjobs love to tell everyone the USA has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. These people should start telling the whole truth, not just the parts they like.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy (1)

Uberbah (647458) | about 3 months ago | (#46862647)

Double taxation = taxing money when it passes from rich person to rich person. Doesn't apply to working people earning a living, sales taxes, etc.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46862051)

At least they're not a bunch of deadbeats who've never produced in their lives. I pay good money to keep human waste alive. Until that changes I don't want to hear anything else.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 3 months ago | (#46862073)

In FDR's day, corporations paid around 35% of the tax burden -- now it's under 7% and dropping.

We can't "afford things any more for some reason" we hear from the media.

We are supposed to be "more competitive" by allowing H1B visas so we can import educated people to work. These same corporations pay less of the bill and we pay more for education -- and then compete with workers who get education from a socialist government.

The discussion that we "can't tax rich people and corporations otherwise they would leave" is moot. What is the benefit of competing to have have a deadbeat over some other country where they won't pay taxes? The rich have made themselves useless to have in the hope that one day they might donate back to the society. Tax them all and if they leave, tax the hell out of imports and all companies unless they are local.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 3 months ago | (#46862439)

We won't get fooled again

Recent election results point to the contrary, unless I missed how Obama and the Democrats are really sticking it to big business.

LOL@Novell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861501)

Wow. I remember as an IT guy when Novell was the 800 pound gorilla of network operating systems. Then came NT 4.0, then Novell's marketshare slid, then came Novell trying to co-opt Linux to make their produce survive. No dice. SUSE is a good product, but I refuse to have anything to do with Novell after their shenanigans and failure. Then they took SUSE and bought into the whole MS lie of "buying" protection against Linux intellectual property suits against MS or others. Really? Let's not even get started on the notion of "intellectual property"... how about intellectual dishonesty. Thank God for Debian and community software.

Re:LOL@Novell (3, Informative)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 3 months ago | (#46861911)

Novell fucked up when they tried to make everyone pay out the ass for eDirectory, and Microsoft included a reasonable adoption of LDAPv3 in Windows 2000 Server.

That was the beginning of the end for Novell. Today, the world runs on Active Directory.

Re:LOL@Novell (4, Interesting)

unixisc (2429386) | about 3 months ago | (#46862293)

Not just that, had Novell defined IPX in a way that would have allowed them to globally define & extend it, they could have been the de facto IANA and laid out the Internet assignments, instead of letting IPv4 mushroom until it became a pain. Also, had they created a Netware subset OS that could have been a desktop OS, they'd have done fine there as well. Instead, by switching to Linux, they just handed things over to Microsoft by putting a UNIX like OS into the equation.

Re:LOL@Novell (1)

LDAPMAN (930041) | about 3 months ago | (#46862771)

Your IPX comments may have some merit but the idea of a desktop OS based on Netware is ludicrous. Netware was all about pumping packets with very high efficiency and stability. Because of this writing code for Netware was incredibly painful. There was no graphics capability...essentially there was nothing that wasn't about pushing packets, directory services, and networking. You would have been better off trying to write a desktop OS on a Cisco router.

never heard of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46861607)

Sherman Antitrust suit? Windows 95? Never heard of them. ok, I'm showing my age. lol thanks for sharing link though.

Re:never heard of this (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 months ago | (#46862025)

Are you 12 or do you just live under a rock?

Re:never heard of this (1)

Uberbah (647458) | about 3 months ago | (#46862513)

Damn kids. [youtube.com]

Re:never heard of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46862831)

Cow penises.

Novell Killed Themselves (4, Informative)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 3 months ago | (#46862387)

A long time ago.

Novell owned the network File/Print market and pioneered the e-Directory (NDS) environment. Microsoft was playing catch-up the whole way.

The biggest problem with Novell was that you couldn't develop applications on the Netware platform. Microsoft offered ISVs the ability to develop software on the platform (Windows) on which it would run. When Novell purchased Unix, I thought that they would fully integrate NCP (Netware Core Protocol) into Unix. This would allow ISVs to develop software on the same platform on which their software would run. Had they done so, Microsoft would have lost the server wars and been relegated to the desktop.

But Novell didn't do the necessary integration, and the rest is history.

As I recall, Word Perfect was better than Microsoft Word in almost every respect. In fact, Word Perfect 5.0 is probably better in many ways than the current incarnation of Word. Sigh.

tl;dr version: Novell killed themselves and Microsoft moved into the vacuum created when Novell imploded. The resolution of this lawsuit just puts the cherry on top of the whole mess.

Re:Novell Killed Themselves (1)

westlake (615356) | about 3 months ago | (#46862935)

As I recall, Word Perfect was better than Microsoft Word in almost every respect. In fact, Word Perfect 5.0 is probably better in many ways than the current incarnation of Word. Sigh.

Word Perfect was the quintessential DOS-era, character based, word processor, ported to every operating system known to man, each with its own fiefdom within the company.

Its struggles with the transition to a graphical UI did not begin or end with Windows --- and it stumbled badly as the word processor began to evolve into the integrated office suite. Almost Perfect [wordplace.com]

Re:Novell Killed Themselves (1)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#46862971)

But Novell didn't do the necessary integration, and the rest is history.

The back story on what went on when Novell bought Unix is quite interesting. And was probably what prompted the anti trust suit. Story was that there were a few calls made when Novell proposed this idea. If Novell expected to ever work with a Windows platform again, the Unix plan would have to be dropped. Unix would have to be sold (to a Microsoft front company) and Noorda would have to go.

In the final analysis, the suit was probably dropped because there was no intellectual property for Microsoft to share. SMB services had so many different variants between Windows versions that Microsoft couldn't offer a heterogeneous environment. Their only solution was to insist that customers standardize on one Windows version. At one point it was rumored that the Samba [samba.org] developers had a better handle on SMB variants. And could provide more stable services in a mixed Windows world.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...