|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 12:40 PM EST |
When are lawyers technically barred from taking up cases?
If Boies has had Microsoft as a client (even if more than a decade ago) is he
now allowed to represent Novell _against_ Microsoft?
It is obvious that Novell would want his expertise, but, could Microsoft go
against that du to some technicality? Are there anything like a
"reasonable" or fixed time limit?
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 12:44 PM EST |
Place correction in title please. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 12:45 PM EST |
Please use links, as the newspicks will eventually scroll off the page. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple And HTC Settle Remaining Lawsuits - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 12:53 PM EST
- Newspicks Thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 01:45 PM EST
- Newspicks Thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 03:01 PM EST
- Famed quotation isn't dead -- and could even prove costly - Authored by: cricketjeff on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 05:03 PM EST
- With HTC Patent Deal, Apple Is Going For Android’s Jugular - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 06:28 PM EST
- With HTC Patent Deal, Apple Is Going For Android’s Jugular - Authored by: webster on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 06:58 PM EST
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 09:13 PM EST
- I'm not buying it. - Authored by: UncleVom on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 07:31 PM EST
- I'm not buying it. - Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 07:50 PM EST
- I'm partially buying it. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 10:00 PM EST
- Hmmmm... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 10:48 PM EST
- Hmmmm... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 11:43 PM EST
- Hmmmm... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 12:46 PM EST
- More likely, HTC told Apple they could make the screens - Authored by: jesse on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 08:23 PM EST
- Probably just cost/benefit - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 09:29 PM EST
- This may explain HTC's losses. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 09:59 PM EST
- There's That Working Model Again - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 02:37 AM EST
- Samsung hits Apple with 20% price hike: report - Authored by: JimDiGriz on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 06:50 AM EST
- Microsoft's Big Hidden Windows 8 Feature: Built-In Advertising - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 12:02 PM EST
- Samsung charges Apple 20% extra for processors - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 12:55 PM EST
- Analyst claims HTC may pay Apple $6-$8 per Android device - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 03:03 PM EST
- Chromebook - Authored by: symbolset on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 10:54 PM EST
- Samsung Chromebook Series 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 12:29 AM EST
- China: we don't have a copyright problem - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 12:56 AM EST
- Apple and Microsoft may make up to 600% more from Android than Google in 2013 - Authored by: hardmath on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 09:45 AM EST
- Google pledges 1 million euros to Berlin startut hub The Factory - Authored by: squib on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 01:49 PM EST
|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 12:46 PM EST |
Keep your discussion off topic, or you will be forced to read all the fillings
of the case above and summarize them in one paragraph.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- HTC & Apple settle - Authored by: BobinAlaska on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 02:01 PM EST
- Off Topic Thread (Penalty) - Authorial Model - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 03:47 PM EST
- Samsung vs Apple: Samsung puts the boot in hard - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 05:08 PM EST
- Handbags drawn in dawn war in the Linux world Read more: http://news.techeye.net/software/handb - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 07:38 PM EST
- Software patents in Europe - Authored by: squib on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 07:23 AM EST
- Bell vs Blizzard, the next stupid lawsuit, even more so than SCO! - Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 07:45 AM EST
- Samsung bumps up the price of Apple’s processors by 20%, Apple can’t say no - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 12:16 PM EST
- Off Topic Thread - Apples Swiss Clock - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 01:12 PM EST
- Clicky - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 05:38 PM EST
- BBC Crumbling? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 03:37 PM EST
- BlackBerry 10 will launch Jan. 30th - first look - Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 07:07 PM EST
- Oracle pirates RHEL update service .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 07:31 PM EST
- Windows 8 sales less than modest? - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 09:33 PM EST
- UK's plan to landgrab US copyrighted works? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 09:43 PM EST
- What would you do, if you knew? - Authored by: UncleVom on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 10:23 PM EST
- Sinofsky to leave Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 10:31 PM EST
- Gmail unreliable - Authored by: jbb on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 11:01 PM EST
- AUSTRALIAN business owners have accused Facebook of holding them to ransom - Authored by: Tim on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 01:37 AM EST
- Where are all the iPhone 5 app updates? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:33 AM EST
- Steven Sinofsky: Windows division head leaves Microsoft - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 04:53 AM EST
- How to join this site? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 10:03 AM EST
- Draconian Downloading Law In Japan Goes Into Effect... Music Sales Drop - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 11:37 AM EST
- Packed courthouse for the Microsoft-Motorola trial - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 03:01 PM EST
|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 12:47 PM EST |
Keep 'em coming! Thanks!
Offtopic: Yay! My first quadrafecta! 5 minutes of fame! :P[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 05:00 PM EST |
Yes I can. Leaving out the technology, the shear number of events and
documents that need to be covered, probably make this case one of the
more complex cases that a judge is going to see.
Add the technology, and on top add a judge who hasn't learned the
technology, and you end up with problems.
I feel sorry for Judge Mott. Trying this case would be like trying to cross the
road blindfolded.
Wayne
http://madhatter
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JonCB on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 06:00 PM EST |
I do wonder if the exception to the rule here might be Apple-
V-Samsung. There's something about that legal tussle that
makes me think that things are getting just a tad personal.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Getting Personal - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 06:17 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 06:57 PM EST |
Unless SCO is officially over, it seems like there is a conflict of interest
here with Boies Schiller suing Novell in the SCO case and working for them in
this case.
Since the deal in the SCO case was for a one-time fee covering all appeals, it
seems like that case is not over for his law firm unless appeals are dropped.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 09:31 PM EST |
The courts should start handling these over-length appeals by weight instead of
length. Tell them they get 750 grams. If they go over-weight, the court will
take a paper-cutter to the stack and trim off the bottom edge till the thing
makes weight.
No requests, no warnings.
Did they cut off all your footnotes and citations... pity poor Priscilla.
Do your arguments fall apart because key sentences are missing from the pages?
ibid.
Seriously isn't there rules for a reason and why does BS&F think they are
super exceptional to all these rules?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 04:27 AM EST |
I've drawn attention to the US v. Microsoft opinions before in relation to
Novell v. Microsoft. Please note that the anticompetitive action between Word
and WordPerfect had already been dealt with in a previous case. This was all
about middleware.
From STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., v. MICROSOFT
CORPORATION (with citations deleted and my emphasis):Ultimately, by
writing to the middleware API set, applications developers could write
applications which would run on any operating system on which the middleware was
present. Plaintiffs focused their attention primarily upon two such middleware
threats to Microsoft’s operating system dominance–Netscape Navigator and the
Java technologies.
The district and appellate courts accepted
Plaintiffs’ theory of competition despite the fact that “neither Navigator,
Java, nor any other middleware product could [at that time], or would soon,
expose enough APIs to serve as a platform for popular
applications.”...
Four-Part Test for Liability
Having
concluded that the district court properly identified the relevant market as the
market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems and properly excluded
middleware products from that market, the appellate court turned its attention
to the issue of whether Microsoft responded to the threat posed by middleware in
violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the appellate court set out
to determine whether Microsoft “maintain[ed], or attempt[ed] to . . . maintain,
a monopoly by engaging in exclusionary conduct.” The appellate court recounted
that the district court answered that inquiry in the affirmative, finding
“Although certain Web browsers provided graphical user interfaces as far back as
1993, the first widely-popular graphical browser distributed for profit, called
Navigator, was brought to market by the Netscape Communications Corporation
(‘Netscape’) in December 1994.”
Microsoft liable for violating § 2 of
the Sherman Act:
by engaging in a variety of exclusionary acts . . .
[s]pecifically . . . : (1) the way in which it integrated [Internet Explorer]
into Windows; (2) its various dealings with Original Equipment Manufacturers
(“OEMs”), Internet Access Providers (“IAPs”), Internet Content Providers
(“ICPs”), Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), and Apple Computer; (3) its
efforts to contain and to subvert Java technologies; and (4) its course of
conduct as a whole.
In order to review the district court’s findings
on this point, the appellate court outlined a four-part test for determining
whether particular conduct can be said to violate antitrust law.
“First, to be condemned as exclusionary, a monopolist’s act must have an
‘anticompetitive effect.’ That is, it must harm the competitive process and
thereby harm consumers.”
Second, the plaintiff must “demonstrate that
the monopolist’s conduct harmed competition, not just a competitor.”
Third, “the monopolist may proffer a ‘procompetitive justification’ for its
conduct.” If this justification stands unrebutted by the plaintiff, the
monopolist may escape liability.
Therefore, the fourth prong of the
inquiry requires that the plaintiff “demonstrate that the anticompetitive harm
of the conduct outweighs the procompetitive benefit.” The appellate court
stressed that, although evidence of intent is relevant “to understand the likely
effect of the monopolist’s conduct,” when assessing the balance between the
anticompetitive harm and the procompetitive effect, the trial court should focus
on the “effect of [the exclusionary] conduct, not the intent behind
it.”
So, Microsoft were still illegally attacking middleware even
though the middleware was still far from realising market place competition
against Windows.
Here's part of cpeterson's report of the
trial:"There's your proof right there," says Judge Motz.
"Frankenberg says it was basically done, and that implies, *not* done." He went
on to reprise Microsoft's argument about the non-existence of the software suite
which could have been damaged by Microsoft actions.
No, says Johnson,
that's not the case. The portion of QuattroPro which wasn't complete was the
Shared Code portion, which depended on the Microsoft APIs. Everything else was
done; the core engine was not being substantially changed from the prior version
of the product. The delivery of WordPerfect never was dependent upon the
delivery of QuattroPro; even the PerfectOffice suite product didn't necessarily
depend on QP delivery because they had -- as some development team members had
testified -- a backup plan to ship PerfectOffice with a coupon for QP whenever
it did become ready.
Well, where is your evidence, Judge Motz wants
to know, that WordPerfect was designed to run on something other that Win95? How
can you claim this is about competition in the operating systems market, if
you're not marketing another operating system? What is that other operating
system?
Novell's lawyers appear, by this time, quite flabbergasted.
This is all about a version designed *for* Win95, and the judge says that if
Novell can't prove that it was designed for something other than Win95, the
whole case gets tossed out? Exchange of glances, shrugs, dismayed
head-shaking...
Novell puts up a chart showing the numerous different
versions of WordPerfect: for Dos, for Win3, Win3.1, OS/2, Unix, etc.
But, says Judge Motz, those are *earlier* versions. The evidence all says you
just wanted a Windows 95 product. The developers -- Harral, Richardson, Gibb --
all testified that they loved the new technology. They wanted to marry their new
product to it. Show me the new operating system which was going to be
competitive, or else I just have to assume that Windows 95 won the market
because it had superior technology.
Again Mr. Johnson contradicts
Judge Motz, saying that for one thing, the "middleware" capabilities of
WordPerfect make it, itself, the OS-replacement; or at least, the thing that
would make the OS choice unimportant. Besides, says Mr. Johnson, that isn't a
point we have to prove, because it's already been ruled on.
"If I say
you have to prove it," says Motz, "then you have to prove it."
"That's
why we have a thing called 'the law of the case'," responds
Johnson.
One of the witnesses went on to state the problems they
had in porting WP to NT and the team set up to do other porting.
Now,
Stuart Singer tells us:The District Court's test for determining
harm to competition in the operating systems market departed markedly (and
erroneously) from the test applied in the D.C. Circuit in United States v.
Microsoft Corp., the law of the case as set as set forth in the District Court’s
summary judgment opinion and the Fourth Circuit’s affirmance of the relevant
portions of that opinion.
Proper treatment of these legal issues
requires an explanation of the tests, how the District Court departed from them,
and why those departures were erroneous as a matter of
law."
That's just what I have been pointing out!...
And
Stuart Singer agrees with me...
I'm just going to go over it, one more
time!
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 04:40 PM EST |
And why would they when they were confident that
the judge would rule in their favour.
And he did as the track record would predict.
Does that mean that MS has the judge under their thumb?
Not yet, but it does have a fishy smell to it.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Different judges - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2012 @ 08:06 AM EST
|
|
|
|