|
Exhibits to Microsoft's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment in Novell WordPerfect Case |
|
Monday, November 23 2009 @ 11:46 PM EST
|
I'm so glad you answered my question with a resounding Yes as to whether you wanted to get all the exhibits attached to Microsoft's Memorandum of Law [PDF] in support of Microsoft's cross motion for summary judgment in the Novell v. Microsoft antitrust litigation. We finally find out what Microsoft paid Caldera to settle the DrDOS litigation back in 2000: $280 million. We even get to read the settlement agreement. It's attached as an exhibit. Can you imagine? I'm so surprised.The settlement terms were sealed for all these years, but lo and behold, now that mystery is solved. There are many more goodies on the list of exhibits.
We also find out what Caldera/Canopy then paid Novell from that $280 million: $35.5 million at first, and then after Novell successfully sued Canopy in 2004, Caldera's successor-in-interest on this matter, an additional $17.7 million, according to page 16 of the Memorandum.
Microsoft claims that Novell is not the real party in interest in this antitrust case, and so it can't sue Microsoft for the claims it has lodged against it, because, Microsoft says, Novell sold its antitrust claims to Caldera when it sold it DrDOS. So the exhibits are trying to demonstrate that Novell got paid in full, so to speak, via that earlier litigation. As a result, we get to read a number of documents from the Novell v. Canopy litigation. Novell responds [PDF] it retained its antitrust claims in the applications market. So those are the parties' positions, but to us, this is a history. We have all the Microsoft exhibits for you, thanks to your kind donations, and there are a lot of exhibits. We'll be posting all the exhibits to the Novell response in opposition to this motion next, so keep in mind this is only half of the story.
Here, then, so you can follow along, are the attachments followed by the exhibits attached to Steven Holley's affidavit, which tells us what all of the other exhibits are:
Attachments:
Enjoy! And thank you for helping us complete this project. This is computer history, and we have preserved it.
|
|
Authored by: LocoYokel on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 12:14 AM EST |
Title error -> correction [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LocoYokel on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 12:15 AM EST |
Please indicate which Pick you are referencing.
Also, lets follow the posting guidelines and note the HTML hints in red.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LocoYokel on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 12:17 AM EST |
Anything not pertaining to this entry that you may think is of interest to the
rest of us.
Remember to follow the posting guidelines and note the HTML hints in red.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: designerfx on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 12:51 AM EST |
What is with the part about destroying evidence upon settlement? Is that normal?
It sounds questionable, is there some sort of guidelines as to what is allowed
within a settlement and what is not?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 05:52 AM EST |
Microsoft claims that Novell is not the real party in interest in
this antitrust case, and so it can't sue Microsoft for the claims it has lodged
against it, because, Microsoft says, Novell sold its antitrust claims to Caldera
when it sold it DrDOS.
That's just plain ridiculous.
Novell
didn't sell anything related to WordPerfect to Caldera, it sold the WordPerfect
business to Corel, and in that transaction it retained all rights needed to
follow through with this anti-trust litigation against Microsoft.
This
suit is about anti-trust violations made by Microsoft with respect to
WordPerfect in the Office applications market (using their monopoly in the OS
market to try to obtain another monopoly in the office applications
market)
The other suit, that Novell originally filed about DRDOS that
was later sold to Canopy/Caldera and was settled had to do with MS using it's
monopoly in the OS market to unfairly wipe out a competitior in that same OS
market.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pcrooker on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 06:02 PM EST |
Many, many thanks to everyone for these exhibits. Now at least MS can't hide,
lie, evade even if there is a confidential settlement - well, they will try but
it won't be as effective.
We'll have to wait for the Novell side for the fuller picture.
I just had a dip - Exhibit 15 - William H Gates to Frankenberg at Novell.
"With regard to Novell applications, all known incompatibilities have been
resolved" - that got a laugh. It is clear they know no shame.
Apparently, MS claims a royalty of $15 per copy of Unix 5.3 on the Intel
platform - in the Summary and Recommendations. Mr Gates claims there was a
Centaur Agreement (between MS & Novell? he doesn't say) where MS
"delivered quality work on time". First I've heard of this.
Frankenberg only mentions Novell will drop the $15 in Exhibit 14, and a cursory
look on Google returned nothing. No doubt we will see more when Novell's side is
done.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 07:28 PM EST |
so why isnt SCO suing Microsoft [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, November 25 2009 @ 10:58 AM EST |
Do you think that it's possible that someone messed up? I mean seriously. I just
cannot see Microsoft wanting the general public to be able to read this stuff.
---
Wayne
http://crankyoldnutcase.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|