U.S. Supreme Court rejects Microsoft antitrust appeal
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied a Microsoft appeal to an antitrust case that dates back to Novell's desktop PC software business in the mid-1990s.
The move leaves standing a lower court ruling that says Novell can sue Microsoft under federal antitrust laws. Novell argued that Microsoft used its monopoly power to sink Novell's QuattroPro spreadsheet and WordPerfect word processor.
The court had no comment and Chief Justice John Roberts abstained because he is a Microsoft shareholder, according to the Associated Press.
"Microsoft specifically targeted WordPerfect and Novell's other office productivity applications because they threatened Microsoft's Windows monopoly," according to the Novell court filing quoted by the Bloomberg news service.
In its case, Novell also said that Microsoft withheld technical information to make WordPerfect work with Windows 95.
In its appeal, Microsoft argued that federal antitrust laws don't apply to the case because Novell does not compete in operating systems.
In the late 1990s, Microsoft settled federal and state antitrust suits against it, which includes ongoing oversight over the company's actions.
The Novell case is the largest of remaining private suits against the company.
Microsoft contended in its appeal that Novell can't invoke the U.S. antitrust laws because it didn't compete against Windows in the operating system market.
Update 12:23 pm Pacific: Microsoft released a statement on Monday regarding the case, explaining its rationale to appeal the lower court's ruling.
"We realize the Supreme Court reviews a small percentage of cases each year, but we filed our petition because it offered an opportunity to address the question of who may assert antitrust claims. We look forward to addressing this and other substantive matters in the case before the trial court. We believe the facts will show that Novell's claims, which are 12 to 14 years old, are without merit."
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin. 
For some background on myself, I was born in 1983, my family had an Apple IIe until 1995. We upgraded to WordPerfect somewhere around 1997 from Microsoft horrible free office suite. We moved to Microsoft Office after I had a chance to use it on my high school's computers, which was sometime in 1999-2000.
The argument that Microsoft used its de facto monopolistic power to crush the competition, as they have over, and over, is a valid argument, and I personally think is accurate.
If you think that dismissing this argument would be a pro-competition action, you are sadly mistaken, it would be *against* competition. The Republicans, despite what they say, have proven themselves to be anti-comptetition rather than pro- most of the time. But if you aren't clued into their 'pay attention to what I say, not what I do' stance by now, you aren't paying attention. Which, IMHO, is one of the saddest state of affairs today with Americans.
If everyone had equal access to windows then that's fair market competition. When MS uses it's distribution agreements to funnel a 'free' version of it's 2nd rate software with every system to the point that everyone using Word Perfect, and Lotus start using the free version they got with their computers...free market competition was circumvented.
All business would do what MS did given the chance. That's why we have a government that regulates monopolies. To deal with the companies that do end up in a position to shut out the competition via methods that have to do with anything but the strength of the products merits. Toyota wins on quality. That?s fair. Toyota buying all dealerships with the cash they made from having quality, and then shutting out GM and Ford. That?s monopoly.
The crux of the matter is Novell and others (including the US government and the EEC) believes MS has illegally used their operating system monopoly to run competitors out of business.
Not sure what purpose is served here by including a bio but,in the spirit of the original posting, I was born in the mid 1930s, have owned a variety of Macs and PC's over the years (presently own 4 Macs, two PCs and an old Osborne Executive) and minimize my purchase of MS products not on any technical grounds but because they personify to me much that is evil and unethical in a large corporation.
In addition, MS has taken a perfectly good word in the english language, innovation, and perverted it. Embrace, extend and then extinguish a competitors innovation is what MS does best.
If MS had been around when the wheel was invented the wheel would not be round.
If this were about competition, then QuatroPro would have died a quiet death. It is alleged the software was starved Out of the OS by MS.
Example: company A make the OS. Companies B & C produce a product to work with the OS, both need reasonable information to have their product work
with the OS. Company A has No Dog in the Fight as to whether B or C's product is better ... Tech info would not be withheld.
In this case, it is alleged, is seems that company A & company B are the same. So why would company AB do anything to assist with company C's product
when that product goes Head-to-Head with the company B product ???
BTW - Ain't if great the the guys who "'invented" the spreadsheet didn't patent it ?
{{ Mac 128 / MS Multi-Plan 1984 not mentioned in the following ...History of Spread Sheets -- dssresources.com/history/sshistory.html }}
MS won the Windows war because they had all the software while OS/2 had nowhere near as much.
However later MS came to the market and pushed out the main software makers for windows(who helps MS win the OS war) by using their distribution advantage and knowledge of windows.
Novell has a strong case on MS business practice. Early Microsoft windows products were 2nd rate. They won the windows market share war for other reasons.
Microsoft is a different company today, humbled by supreme court decisions and rulings that it is a monopoly. This was a different era, their mantra was to slay competition anyway they could. Word Perfect was moving to a graphical interface and needed insight into the operating system. By delaying that, Microsoft was able to hamstring WP and present Microsoft Word as a better alternative. They would have just bought Word Perfect if they could.
Let's not forget that Microsoft wouldn't allow Quatro Pro and Word Perfect to be preinstalled on PCs that sold windows (is there another kind) - just like they did with Netscape. In this same time frame they killed Dr Dos, by patching windows just to break it.
FUD - the fear uncertainty and doubt spread by microsoft about their competitors in this timeframe was palpable. Those of us who lived through it, know just how powerful, vindictive and single-minded Microsoft was. I say was, because they are completely different company today. Novell deserves its day in court, the fact that Novell is even in business today is amazing.
Microsoft talks a good game - but has the animal really changed its stripes? Only time and the vote of the upcoming OOXML ( they stand to lose big business if it is not approved ) will tell. Let us watch and see if Microsoft STAYS as open and DELIVERS openness after the OOXML vote.
Microsoft is a decent company today with decent products. Don't discourage Novell, they need reparations from 20 years ago. Ever heard how bad the beer monopolies were in early America? Microsoft wasn't breaking knees if you didn't drink their beer, they just wouldn't sell you windows on your PC hardware if you didn't offer their products for free and not install the competition, and intentional engineer their OS, so that competiting products would have a difficult and sometimes impossible time getting installed - it's illegal now and it was illegal then.
Microsoft withheld (hidden) API's for themselves and gave other organizations API's that didn't work with Windows as well (less memory).
So if Microsoft illegally used it's OS to gain dominance in other areas, then this is a prime example of that.
People are often too quick to forget or are just plain ignorant of the facts.
Microsoft deserves to lose this and pay out a settlement many more times than Novell could have made from it's office product.
Thankfully nobody owns the Internet as a platform. At least on that platform you can create and innovate and not have anyone give you dodgy API's because all the protocols on the Internet are open and free to use. Everybody has the same advantage.
To me, this is one more reason why innovating on Windows is a waste of time. The Internet is the platform and the future. Microsoft killed off innovation on Windows by trying to own all the software that was being built on top. How selfish was that. VCs even gave up financing ideas if they were Windows dependent. The result is that Windows is dying because of it's lack of innovation.
In the meantime Microsoft should be held accountable for their past behavior.
"IBM first approached Digital Research and asked them to create a version of CP/M (Control Program/Microcomputer). The owner of DR snubbed the IBM lawyers and went flying or golfing (depending upon whose story you hear) instead..."
To repeat; "The owner of DR snubbed the IBM lawyers and went flying or golfing (depending upon whose story you hear) instead..." Got to give Microsoft lots of credit in some ways for responding to IBM's Request/Needs at that time in the history of the development of the PC. ;-) !
http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2History.html
computers. What most people refuse to do, and think they can't
is DON'T DO WINDOWS. You are not forced to use their inferior
products. Go Linux. I remember Windows 3. Talk about
unstable. It also was the version that struck attacks at other
programs. They claimed it was "accidental". RIGHT. We know it
was so people would use MS's programs over other companies.
On another OS, after a bad version of MS worst (word)
HUNDREDS of MAJOR holes, I have NEVER purchased another
program from them. I have used the comp versions, or other
companies programs. I have refused to give Bill's company
money. Now there are three choices you can use over office.
I hope MSFT gets nailed. I wish the court would have followed
through on their decision and forced them to be split up into 2.
GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY AS CHARGED!
"Computer Model for Feasibility Analysis and Reporting-COMFAR"
"Project analysis, evaluation and management software by UNIDO".
"In 1983 the first generation of the Computer Model for Feasibility Analysis and Reporting (COMFAR), a computation tool for financial analysis of investments, was released. Since then, this UNIDO software has been developed further, to support the financial and economic appraisal of projects. In 1995 the third generation, COMFAR III Expert, was introduced to the market.
Today, over 1500 licensees are using COMFAR in about 130 countries for project analysis and appraisal..."
http://www.win2biz.com/comfar/default.htm
Read the subject line!
- 12 to 14 years old
- by y82whs March 19, 2008 8:38 AM PDT
- Think what you like about the role of the government in regulation, or whether Novell was its own worst enemy. But I must admit, Microsoft's quote about the age of the suit, when their appeals is what caused the delay, is a sign to me of their utter hypocrisy and cynical manipulation of the press. Their quote follows:
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- MS Will Eat Your Mom's Kidneys & Send You the Cleaning Bill for Their Shirt
- by TheSmellyMoa March 19, 2008 9:55 AM PDT
- Did you expect them to act like they're members of a community called civilization?
- View reply
Processing -
(43 Comments)"We believe the facts will show that Novell's claims, which are 12 to 14 years old, are without merit."
Obviously, Novell would have been more than glad to fight it out in court years ago. The age of the lawsuit is totally Microsoft's doing.
They're lawyers.
At heart, MS is a gangland law firm that hires enough programmers to pretend to be a software company.
I mean, look at the CEO. Sold cakes for Duncan Heinz then took a job with his squeaky-voiced college buddy's firm.
When Ballmer stops dancing and talks about technology, he sounds exactly like a guy from a baked goods company.