decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
A good point best illustrated by Stac v MS | 627 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
the Microsoft technique
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT
"Nearly"?
I am not sure that is the correct word to describe a company
that has been convicted of abusing its monopoly in the world
2 biggest markets (US and Euro) and been fined multiple
times in Europe over its reluctance to apply court orders.
They have been recently warned that the EU court is
reviewing its latest order and how MS broke it (browser
ballot screen that disappeared for weeks after a service
pack). They will most probably be fined *again* for that.

People have complained that the EU court case against MS was
just a money grab and I can see Apple fans complain that the
future fines from the UK court are the same when most of
those are due to willful non-compliance from those
companies. You make that bed, now sleep in it...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple didn't need the help
Authored by: xtifr on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 03:00 PM EDT
Apple didn't need to learn from Microsoft. In fact, we should be very thankful
that it was Microsoft, not Apple, which ended up, through a quirk of history, in
a monopoly position in computing. Apple's history includes being the first (and
maybe still the only--I'm not sure) company actively boycotted by the FSF,
because of their "look-and-feel" suits back in the nineties. Their
anti-freedom activities today are very much a part and parcel of a company
tradition that dates back to the days shortly after Woz left, and before
Microsoft had reached the position of power it holds today.

Of course, this is sad and ironic, because the tradition dating back to when Woz
was an active member of the company is one of openness and technical innovation.
Apple has always, and continues to be, a highly schizophrenic company, which
reflects the conflicting personalities of its two founders. Which, in turn, is
why I'm a huge fan of Woz, and generally loathe Jobs.

---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A good point best illustrated by Stac v MS
Authored by: Tolerance on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 05:12 PM EDT
If we're going to be comparing Apple's (il)legal manoeuvres
with those of MS, one case in particular helps: STAC
Electronics v Microsoft, twenty years ago. MS violated a
couple of Stac patents and lost the resulting lawsuit.
However:
(1) The resulting $120 million judgement was pocket change
(2) MS didn't even pay that, because in essence they bought
a controlling share of Stac for about a third of that!
(3) Stac also made chips - hardware to embody their patents.
Had Stac's patents actually been respected, exploiting them
could easily have been worth many billions to the chip
business alone.

On the whole Microsoft's actions were cheered as a proper
solution to a small company's dreams standing in the way of
a huge company's contributions to the greater American good.

I remember in particular Jerry Pournelle (of BYTE fame)
defending the outcome; and honestly, morality aside, it's
hard to say he was wrong.

Moral: If the commercial world obeys only the law of the
jungle, it's perverse to criticize Apple for doing whatever
it can to survive.

---
Grumpy old man

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • In that case - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 06:21 PM EDT
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )