Posted on 11/14/2002 3:57:30 PM PST by Bush2000
That might be true if hardware quality was keeping up with CPU speed and disk drive capacity, but by the time you've paid the repairman to fix the blown power supply in the monitor, replaced the disk after it failed, replaced the mother board because the RAM died after the fan went out, you might as well be buying a new computer. It's cheaper. The hardware simply isn't designed to last more than a few years.
Here. I have more references if you want them.
But you're completely mischaracterizing what happened by suggesting it was intentional. It's wasn't.
I see. Stac's code just wandered over and inserted itself into DOS 6.0. I supposed it could have simply been an insider that inserted the code without formal approval from Microsoft management, but then, you don't believe in insiders, do you?
The truth is that Microsoft required a "not intentional" statement in the settlement. That isn't because it wasn't intentional, it's because Microsoft didn't want to have it used against them in court the next time they stole from someone.
Stac's lawyers took the case on a contingency fee basis. There was no "crushing Stac". The lawyers wouldn't get paid by Stac unless they won the case. Don't you ever get tired of your own lies?
This wasn't some personal injury case. Corporate law firms are paid by the hour for their work. That's standard practice. Unless you'd care to provide a reference that Irell & Manella LLP took the case on contingency? I didn't think so.
You want to call me a liar? Fine. Prove it, shill.
Odd. You have posted references in the past directly from Microsoft's web site, yet you scream "BIAS!"
Okay. Try here.You'll have to dig a bit, not all of the commentary about the Stac case by lawyers is in one place.
What is it about the phrase "non-willful infringement" do you not understand?
I thought I made that perfectly clear and yes, that kind of language finds it's way into court settlements all the time as a hedge against future legal liability. That does not mean that the violation was indeed non-willful. The facts of the court case indicate that Microsoft willfully stole Stac's code.
In case you really do live under a rock, this kind of thing happens all the time in criminal cases too. A guy goes out and murders in cold blood but then pleads to involuntary manslaughter. Just because the language of the plea has "involuntary" in it does not mean that it wasn't a premeditated murder. It's just the best the court could do.
"The State of California v. Pacific Indemnity ... Initially, the State [of California] was defended by the attorney general's office. They took the position that they were incapable of providing sufficient resources and later retained the law firm of Irell & Manella on a contingency basis."
But no evidence that they did so in the Stac v. Microsoft case. I see.
Try again.
Wow. Someone who knows the law is anti-Microsoft. Maybe because Microsoft has a long history of breaking the law?
Why do I get the distinct impression that even if God passed down a stone tablet citing Microsoft's illegal and unethical behaviors you would still try to explain it away?
Prove it. Let's see documented proof that doesn't come from some ABM website.
Well, you're not going to find it on a pro-Microsoft website, so I don't think that there is any evidence at all that would convince you. We're just going to have to disagree.
Ah, but in this case, you're trying to argue -- without any proof whatsoever -- that the term "non-willfully infringement" was a legal flim-flam. Prove it.
Nonsense. The proof is in the court testimony. I can point you to it, but I can't make you believe it. I've never claimed that is was a "legal flim-flam." I've stated that the insertion of protection from future legal action in a court settlement is a standard practice. I've also stated that it does have any bearing on what actually happened.
Microsoft agreed to a settlement because they didn't want the case to go before a jury. The evidence that they did indeed steal Stac's code was too strong.
We do know that you were either lying or you were full of sh*t when you said: "Corporate law firms are paid by the hour for their work. That's standard practice." It isn't standard practice. Far from it. When plaintiffs are going after a deep-pocketed defendant -- like Big Tobacco or Big Guns or Big Software -- they're willing to forego immediate hourly gratification in exchange for a percentage of the eventual settlement or damage award. We saw the greedy plaintiff lawyers come forward and collect multi-billion dollar contingency fees after the tobacco settlement. It was disgusting.
I have asked you twice for evidence that Irell & Manella LLP took the Stac v. Microsoft case on a contingency basis in support of your statement that I lied. Twice now you have weasled.
Payment by the hour is standard practice in corporate law. While there are indeed exceptions such as the one you cited, they are just that, exceptions.
The Stac v. Microsoft case is not one of those exceptions. You want to prove me different, provide evidence that Irell & Manella LLP worked contingency during the Stac v. Microsoft case.
Ratcheting up the venom and personal attacks does not prove your case. Either provide evidence or eat your words.
I agree. Microsoft will have to start innovating instead of appropriating.
BUMP
I provided data, you rejected it. Not because of the data itself, which you cannot or will not refute, but merely because the people who supply the data don't care for Microsoft.
Well, your likes and dislikes are not my problem. If you care to believe that genuine attorneys who have researched the legal aspects of the case are less well equipped to comment on a legal case than you, merely because that, after examining the case, they have developed a distaste for Microsoft's ethics, well, that's remarkable.
Arrogant, stupid and blind, yet still remarkable.
If you'd care to supply contrary data from other attorneys, I'm willing to examine it.
On the other hand, the fact that even lawyers think Microsoft acts sleazy kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it?
It was a Jury that awarded the $120M judgement!!! Get your facts straight
I reviewed my research data, and you are right. It was a jury. I also dug up this little nugget that shows the damage that was caused by Microsoft's handling of the suit.
" Jurors, who did not give their names, said they calculated the damages based on about $5.50 per unit of MS-DOS 6.0. Clow said the award would cover monetary losses suffered by Stac, but couldn't fully compensate for damage to the Carlsbad, Calif.-based company. The loss of revenue when Microsoft included the program in its software forced the company to lay off about 20 percent of its workforce and prompted a lawsuit by disgruntled shareholders, Clow said. ``The company lost its momentum. I'm not sure money alone can restore that,'' he said. "
Even the jury knew that Microsoft had damaged Stac Electronics beyond the ability of monetary compensation to repair. Predatory practices are not the mark of a company that wants a free market.
This had a chilling effect on the rest of the industry. While the case showed that it was possible to fight Microsoft and win, the fact that the Stac suit was a Phyrric victory effectively shut down any ideas of any company taking Microsoft to court for any of their dozens of other illegal behaviors. What good does it do to fight Microsoft if even a victory destroys your company? This was the genesis of involving the government to right the wrongs that Microsoft had perpetrated on the industry.
I'm working on it.
And I'll be waiting for it. And when it doesn't come (because you can't come up with it since it didn't happen), I presume that your apology for calling me a liar will be forthcoming.
But you routinely accept anything pouring out of One Microsoft Way despite the many times they have been caught lying. You're right. You're crazy.
Clow was the CEO of Stac at the time, not a juror. You're attributing his feelings to those of the jury. Nope. Sorry. Wrong. Do you honestly expect Clow to say that he wanted less money?
I expect that he knew what his companies profit and loss statement looked like and knew that the award wouldn't keep his company from dying out. And he was right.
This was a civil lawsuit between two parties that didn't involve the government at all.
My point exactly. Any company with a complaint against Microsoft looked at the Stac v. Microsoft case and decided that petitioning their elected officials for government action was a much safer course.
Yeah? Well, let's see if you believe this:
Microsoft's latest security failure allows an intruder to run the code of their choice due to a buffer overrun. There is a patch available, but, due to one of Microsoft's little attempts to protect their ability to snoop customer's computers, namely the inability to set the kill bit on certain Microsoft components, the patch isn't enough.
The only certain fix is to delete all of the Trusted Publisher certificates, including Microsoft's.
That's right, even Microsoft says you can't trust Microsoft.
Oh, and the source of this? Microsoft's website.
So you won't trust sources that don't like Microsoft. And now even Microsoft says that Microsoft can't be trusted. Where are you going to get your news, from a Ouija board?
Maybe you should consider that anti-Microsoft sites got that way because Microsoft lies, cheats, steals and screws up over and over again and some people are tired of apologizing for them.
Then again, maybe it's all just a Vast Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy.
Instead of proving their case in court, they got the taxpayers to ante up for their bogus, trumped-up charges -- and they still couldn't make 'em stick.
Really? I seem to remember that the Findings of Fact were upheld by the Court of Appeals. Microsoft was legally found to be a monopoly. Microsoft was found to have performed anti-competative practices. The fact that the court didn't see fit to provide strong remedy does not make Microsoft's guilt disappear.
There are numerous suits in the works now as a result of the finding, nearly 140 of them at last count. The EU is on deck for the next round. There are still several outstanding suits that were waiting for the final judgement. Having Microsoft's guilt laid out by a Federal court will be good for them to have. Even Microsoft's insurer thinks so. Zurich American is trying to isolate themselves from Microsoft's future fines and fees.
Microsoft could make all of these legal problems go away by simply playing by the rules, but they can't do that without having their sales figures go into the toilet. Microsoft routinely sells products in tight markets at a loss, using the cash generated by their monopoly status from desktop OS sales to prop them up.
If Microsoft sold their products for what they were worth, Microsoft would go bankrupt inside of a year. And Microsoft knows it. That's why hanging on to their monopoly is so important.
They also know that they won't keep that monopoly forever, thus the frantic push to gain a foothold in other markets, even where they've traditionally been laughed at.
Microsoft is still showing that they have no regard for the law or any court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.