Slashdot Mirror

the court: okay. welcome back. please take a seat. we had a few more departures in your absence. let's continue with the questions. the next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?

from the voir dire transcript

He was asked if he was involved in any lawsuits within the last ten years, which he answered. The lawsuit with Seagate occurred in 1993 which is beyond ten years ago. Thus, he did not disclose it because it wasn't asked of him. But let's pretend he attempted to deceive the system in order to screw over Samsung because that sounds better, right?

Read the court transcripts before you mouth off so wrongly, o trollish one. There was no "ten year" stipulation in the question. The stipulated time period was "ever", and it was explicitly stipulated by the Judge in the voir-dire.

why are they not attacking these patents directly?

Samsung lawyers are doing that as well in one of the many filings. Basically calling each of the patents asserted by Apple invalid due to indefiniteness because of vague words like "substantially centered", ambiguous use of dotted lines in the design patents, and so on.

See comment here for a brief summary.

excerpt:
Claim 50 uses such a term of degree, requiring that the first and second "boxes of content" be "substantially centered" on the touch-screen display. JX 1046.49 (emphasis added.) [...] There are no tests, parameters, or other criteria for determining whether such a box is or is not "substantially centered."

why are they not attacking these patents directly?

Samsung lawyers are doing that as well in one of the many filings. Basically calling each of the patents asserted by Apple invalid due to indefiniteness because of vague words like "substantially centered", ambiguous use of dotted lines in the design patents, and so on.

See comment here for a brief summary.

excerpt:
Claim 50 uses such a term of degree, requiring that the first and second "boxes of content" be "substantially centered" on the touch-screen display. JX 1046.49 (emphasis added.) [...] There are no tests, parameters, or other criteria for determining whether such a box is or is not "substantially centered."

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120922171505170

The real news is Samsung's motion for JMOL or a new trial. This verdict is hopelessly inconsistent and compromised - the statements made by the jury foreman are hard to believe! - that there is no chance of it standing. If sane, Apple would admit that, argue that the verdict should be tossed in it's entirety, so the important points in Samsung's favor are lost as well, and keep it's powder dry for round 2. I'm not holding my breath for that, as they have shown a willingness to argue that the sky is green from day 1.

Apple might have a hard time asking for more money from that judgment when Samsung has valid claims which could lead to a retrial.

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1990Samsung50and59motions.pdf

Of note: the table of references point to cases of jury misconduct, even though the arguments by Samsung were redacted. Bet on this judgment being tossed out fast.

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653

not going to go into details here but MS basically did a buncha stuff to lock out NOTMS from the browser market up to and including delaying Key info from Computer OEMs if they preloaded a NONMS web browser.

you want details and Cites follow the link

Samsung released exact copies of iOS devices, one after the other.

Right, the 2 devices picture here are exact copies you can't even tell the difference, but this looks nothing like them. They could have omitted the SAMSUNG logo and done a round button instead of their rounded-rectangle so why didn't they? And what happens if you look at them from the side or the back? If you took the branding off a bunch of modern TVs you'd probably have just as much trouble telling them apart.

Yes the first verdict in this case in California (incidentally right where Apple is based) was for Apple, but that verdict contradicts verdicts from elsewhere in the world as well as seeming more than a little flakey

Advocating for Apple in this case is fine, nothing wrong with siding with them if you believe they are right, but false application of terms like 'exact copies' and using other terms like 'blatant copying' rather than facts shows general bias. FWIW I don't care either way, i have an iphone and a macbook, the only samsung product i have is my TV.

Apparently, I am not the only one who disagrees with your analysis. A discussion on Groklaw where I quoted your message produced a list of cases where, at least apparently, verdicts have been overturned or vacated for much less than the foreman has done in this case.

Shachar

Ah, no.
The process from beginning to nearly the end was about patents. Google ended up getting virtually all of them invalidated, and Oracle tried to fall back on copyright.
Go read Groklaw:

Oracle initially alleged infringement of seven patents and 132 claims but each claim ultimately was either dismissed with prejudice or found to be non-infringed by the jury. ... Oracle’s first damages report barely mentioned copyright claims), ... but instead fell back on an overreaching (albeit somewhat novel) theory of copyright infringement for its own financial interests late in litigation.

The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.

This is incorrect. The fact that there was pinch-to-zoom 20 years ago, means that the Apple implementation is not a new, novel, non-obvious idea. If it was new, novel and non-obvious, the concept wouldn't have existed before. You're making the same mistake that the jury foreman made, thinking that each part has to be interchangeable in order to qualify as prior art. As this Groklaw article clearly points out, that's simply not the case.

The fact that the exact methodology used by the touch screens is different, doesn't mean that the idea didn't exist 20 years ago. Not only that, but pinch to zoom is about as obvious a method to zoom in when you have a tiny touch screen as there is.

Ridiculously biased reporting from Groklaw also contributed to the tech confusion about the verdict. PJ's litany of lies was a daily feature on the front page of Slashdot for weeks, bringing out of context quotes to the useful idiots here who seemed to really enjoy them.

Ridiculously biased reporting from Groklaw also contributed to the tech confusion about the verdict. PJ's litany of lies was a daily feature on the front page of Slashdot for weeks, bringing out of context quotes to the useful idiots here who seemed to really enjoy them.

Ridiculously biased reporting from Groklaw also contributed to the tech confusion about the verdict. PJ's litany of lies was a daily feature on the front page of Slashdot for weeks, bringing out of context quotes to the useful idiots here who seemed to really enjoy them.

flawed jury verdict

Apple's new shinny

the currently best smartphone in the market

Whoever wrote this made it a touch too clear their loathing for Apple and preference for Samsung.

At least one of those 3 can be factually supported by evidence.

I am, of course, referring to Apple's new shinny.

er... I mean flawed jury verdict.

Actually, he was talking about why they decided that Samsung's "460" patent, which "covers a method of transmitting emails, with and without embedded images, from a mobile phone with a built-in camera" was not invalidated by prior art. And indeed, the jury did find that Apple had not proved that patent invalid

And also that Apple did not infringe upon it.

If you actually watch the video, you'll see that the patent he is talking about is the "460" patent, is a Samsung patent on a method of transmitting emails from a mobile phone with a camera. Indeed, the jury did rule that Apple had not proved that Samsung's patent was invalid. However, they also ruled that Apple did not violate it, so even if the jury had found Samsung's patent invalid based on prior art, it would not have changed anything.

Ignoring the jury instructions is misconduct.

Go read Groklaw

The foreman drove the jury verdict, admitted it and exposed his own failure of logic. He made a giant spectacular leap of logic and ignored all directions given by the court. Usually that fits in the category of saying a jury has done a shit job.

That's not an ego issue, it's pretty much clear fact.

Hilarious irony in that you say "...giant spectacular leap...shit job" - very strong opinionated adjectives and then follow it up by saying it's "clear fact." Fail!

The foreman drove the jury verdict, admitted it and exposed his own failure of logic. He made a giant spectacular leap of logic and ignored all directions given by the court. Usually that fits in the category of saying a jury has done a shit job.

That's not an ego issue, it's pretty much clear fact.

The jury did not seem to think objectively [1] and also appear swayed by the foreman who seems to have gotten away with throwing out the biggest piece of evidence in Samsung's defense[2]. I was surprised that the trial went as it did, handled by a judge with very little experience[3], considering the future of the mobile industry was riding on it. "Rounded corners and Rectangular design"? Righ, Apple, you might as well be suing everyone in the industry becuase I can't find a device that _doesn't_ infringe on that. Apple went after Samsung because it's their biggest competitor.

[1] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
[2] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963
[3] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57497096-37/apple-v-samsung-why-is-judge-koh-so-angry/

The jury did not seem to think objectively [1] and also appear swayed by the foreman who seems to have gotten away with throwing out the biggest piece of evidence in Samsung's defense[2]. I was surprised that the trial went as it did, handled by a judge with very little experience[3], considering the future of the mobile industry was riding on it. "Rounded corners and Rectangular design"? Righ, Apple, you might as well be suing everyone in the industry becuase I can't find a device that _doesn't_ infringe on that. Apple went after Samsung because it's their biggest competitor.

[1] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
[2] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963
[3] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57497096-37/apple-v-samsung-why-is-judge-koh-so-angry/

The fact that he held patents at all means he should have been dismissed. There's a reason why, for example, in Oracle v Google, potential jurors that are in the technology sector or had used Java were excused. That reason: because only evidence brought into trial is supposed to be used to determine the outcome. By having patents in his head, he has information that he can't avoid tapping into during deliberation.

You're making up reasons to believe the trial was unfair because you didn't like the outcome. Stop that.

If the trial was about the validity of the patent system itself and the outcome influenced the validity of patents in a global sense, being a patent holder would be a legitimate reason for exclusion.

But that's not what the trial was about. At all. I realize you slashtards are groupthinking yourselves into believing some gross miscarriage of justice must have happened because you don't like the outcome, and therefore are reading a lot more into events than is warranted, but back in the real world the main question put before the jury was whether Samsung violated Apple's patents.

Samsung could (and did) try to defend itself by attacking the validity of those patents, but overturning them would not have threatened the foreman's own patent.

Lawyers typically screen for that kind of thing and it's surprising they didn't. Perhaps because modern-day patents are all about corporate ownership, and the idea that an individual could hold one is outside their understanding.

Are you fucking kidding me? Listen to yourself. That's the sound of blatant over-the-top rationalization. Just stop. You're making a fool of yourself.

That he wasn't dismissed turned out to be a gamble for Apple and a blunder for Samsung.

Or maybe... just maybe... both of them thought he wasn't biased and were confident enough about their cases to believe that he'd go with them.

Further reading here. Choice quote:

The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions.

You're regurgitating this crap where Groklaw abuses a statement out of context to imply the jury completely disregarded instructions? That kinda says it all.

nonsense.

BOTH sides had patents they were trying to enforce. He could easily have sided with Samsung with respect to their patents, but he didn't.

The fact that he held patents at all means he should have been dismissed. There's a reason why, for example, in Oracle v Google, potential jurors that are in the technology sector or had used Java were excused. That reason: because only evidence brought into trial is supposed to be used to determine the outcome. By having patents in his head, he has information that he can't avoid tapping into during deliberation. Lawyers typically screen for that kind of thing and it's surprising they didn't. Perhaps because modern-day patents are all about corporate ownership, and the idea that an individual could hold one is outside their understanding.

That he wasn't dismissed turned out to be a gamble for Apple and a blunder for Samsung. Further reading here. Choice quote:

The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions.

I don't know if there is sufficient prior art to invalidate those patents; and I don't know if the jury was even allowed to consider invalidation of those patents (if they were then all this prior art should have been displayed for them).

If you don't know these things why are you engaging in a conversation about them? Please do yourself a favor and read up on the trial. If you want a spoil they were asked to decide invalidity, they were given prior art, and they were instructed by their patent holding forman to basically skip over those decisions.

I am 100% sure that you don't know either, you just cherry-picked comments and constructed some plotline which reinforces your world-view.

How can you be 100% sure when you admit you yourself don't even know what's going on? Either way, proving prior art is precisely "cherrypicking" examples of past technologies that preempt the patent technology. I have provided you examples, Samsung has done the same with expert witnesses. The only people who haven't paid attention to this are you, Apple Inc., and the Jury who neglected to even consider it because it was too hard for them.

I don't think either pinch-zoom or scroll bounce-back are all that obvious. It seems like if they were obvious then they would have shown up in a smartphone or tablet before the iPhone/iPad.

Did you even look at the link? There are at least half a dozen examples of pinch-zoom being used in touch systems spanning the last two decades prior to iPhone. That Apple used them in a phone is not novel or innovative. It's obvious. That you don't think it's obvious is irrelevant; it is apparent from the link provided that those "skilled in the art" (which you are not) did see this gesture as obvious.

But the jury didn't even consider the patents validity in their decisions. They went so far as to say such matters bogged down the process, and proceeded diligently as if the patents were valid, as instructed by a patent-holder foreman.

The jury did consider patent validity. They debated it initially at some length, did not come to a consensus at that time, but later returned to and answered the question of validity, as seen from their answers to item #11 on the jury form

No, Apple should not be protected forever. A design patent as a life of about 14 years, shorter than a utility patent, and even a utility patent only lasts for 20. That's pretty far short of forever.

I find it hard to believe that competition is "destroyed" if other developers choose to avoid infringing Apple's "rounded corners" (D'087) patent--particularly considering that the jury found that only 3 of the 8 Samsung devices considered infringed this patent. Would you say that Microsoft's new Windows 8 Phone is "not competitive" because of its failure to imitate Apple's "rounded corner" design?. Is a "bouncing scroll list" really so essential to phone function that no device without it is not competitive? And if bouncing scroll lists really are so marvelous that a phone cannot be usable without them, isn't Apple's invention of this feature so ground-breaking that Apple is entitled to a period of exclusivity to enjoy the fruits of its great invention?

Actually, one of the jurors reported that they discussed that question for quite a while, but could not initially reach consensus, so they deferred a decision on that point and considered whether Samsung had actually infringed (which makes sense; it wouldn't matter if Apple's patents were valid if Samsung had not infringed upon them). Of course, once they found Samsung had infringed, they had to return to the question of whether Apple's patents were valid, because it was question #11 on the jury form. You can see there answers here.

Comments from a jury cannot be used as evidence in either the appeal or a later trial.

They can, have been and will be.

And before anyone asks for citations for this; the crucial comment you want is this one. There is a list of many cases in which improper behavior by the jury has been discovered after the fact and has lead to invalidation of their verdict.

Probably this would have to be brought up first with the original judge, but if she; as seems almost certain; blocks this evidence as she has done with almost all other evidence in Samsung's favor, that can certainly be brought up at appeal.

N.B. This has to be very specific comments which show that the jury breached its instructions or otherwise failed to act as a jury should; For example, if one of the jury brought his outside experience to the rest of the jury and explained things in ways which the judge had explicitly avoided, or if there was testimony which showed that some of the jury had been consulting outside sources such as the Internet. Something like "I could see from the fact that his lips were moving that Bill Gates was lying", on the other hand would just be legitimate opinion.

Wait, seriously? That's so stupid on so many levels that I honestly don't believe it.

Don't shoot the messenger! I pretty much agree with your points. However, Groklaw was convinced that it was All A Big Plot:

But that's not what it's really about, in my view. What it's about now, stage front and center, is what I told you I suspected the California [Psystar] litigation was really about: it's about first sale. This is, then, I believe, a legal effort to destroy the GPL. This is the second such effort. SCO was the first. Somebody really, really wants to destroy the GPL, not just Apple's business reputation.
Psystar files suit against Apple in Florida - What Are They Thinking?

NB: PJ wasn't necessarily accusing Microsoft: darker forces were afoot .

The idea of Groklaw supporting EULAs, though...

To be fair, they weren't "supporting" them in the "Huzzah! EULAs FTW!!!" sense, just pointing out that that, although specific terms in specific EULAs might be unenforceable, the EULA concept as a whole was legal in the US.

Groklaw's concern was that Psystar's defence arguments were similar to past FUD attacks that tried to argue that the GPL was invalid:

Also, I thought you'd find it interesting that an antiGPL activist, Alexander Terekhov, has for years been posting comments on the internet that the way to, in essence, steal GPL code is to use first sale and copyright misuse...
EULAs, Psystar, and the Reality Principle - Updated

Wait, seriously? That's so stupid on so many levels that I honestly don't believe it.

Don't shoot the messenger! I pretty much agree with your points. However, Groklaw was convinced that it was All A Big Plot:

But that's not what it's really about, in my view. What it's about now, stage front and center, is what I told you I suspected the California [Psystar] litigation was really about: it's about first sale. This is, then, I believe, a legal effort to destroy the GPL. This is the second such effort. SCO was the first. Somebody really, really wants to destroy the GPL, not just Apple's business reputation.
Psystar files suit against Apple in Florida - What Are They Thinking?

NB: PJ wasn't necessarily accusing Microsoft: darker forces were afoot .

The idea of Groklaw supporting EULAs, though...

To be fair, they weren't "supporting" them in the "Huzzah! EULAs FTW!!!" sense, just pointing out that that, although specific terms in specific EULAs might be unenforceable, the EULA concept as a whole was legal in the US.

Groklaw's concern was that Psystar's defence arguments were similar to past FUD attacks that tried to argue that the GPL was invalid:

Also, I thought you'd find it interesting that an antiGPL activist, Alexander Terekhov, has for years been posting comments on the internet that the way to, in essence, steal GPL code is to use first sale and copyright misuse...
EULAs, Psystar, and the Reality Principle - Updated

Wait, seriously? That's so stupid on so many levels that I honestly don't believe it.

Don't shoot the messenger! I pretty much agree with your points. However, Groklaw was convinced that it was All A Big Plot:

But that's not what it's really about, in my view. What it's about now, stage front and center, is what I told you I suspected the California [Psystar] litigation was really about: it's about first sale. This is, then, I believe, a legal effort to destroy the GPL. This is the second such effort. SCO was the first. Somebody really, really wants to destroy the GPL, not just Apple's business reputation.
Psystar files suit against Apple in Florida - What Are They Thinking?

NB: PJ wasn't necessarily accusing Microsoft: darker forces were afoot .

The idea of Groklaw supporting EULAs, though...

To be fair, they weren't "supporting" them in the "Huzzah! EULAs FTW!!!" sense, just pointing out that that, although specific terms in specific EULAs might be unenforceable, the EULA concept as a whole was legal in the US.

Groklaw's concern was that Psystar's defence arguments were similar to past FUD attacks that tried to argue that the GPL was invalid:

Also, I thought you'd find it interesting that an antiGPL activist, Alexander Terekhov, has for years been posting comments on the internet that the way to, in essence, steal GPL code is to use first sale and copyright misuse...
EULAs, Psystar, and the Reality Principle - Updated

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120808104757643

Samsung's lawyers fuck-up, get called on it by the judge. PJ implies the judge is an unstable hothead and should be googling for phone pictures herself.

BTW, Groklaw never claimed to be unbiased. It takes the legal perspective of being a "zealous advocate" for their side of the case. The real strong point of the Groklaw is the primary source material and the trial reports, not the analysis. However they didn't have a reporter at Apple v Samsung, so they were mostly rehashing press accounts.

I really want to make a bunch of personal comments, but lets skip that for the moment.. I'd like to bring to your attention at least this one detail..

"The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything....A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million "

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

Your assertion that somehow juries are some kind of paragons of perfection is incorrect. The fact that they could not get simple things like "not infringing" = "no damages" right is a clear indication they did sloppy work, did not understand/did not follow the instructions, or directly ignored them. This is the behavior you are arguing is the inviolate will of the jury.

Anti-apple? You're full of shit.

What made it a huge win for apple was the incompetence and wilful misconduct of the jury.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 (read the comments for further elucidation).

The LG prada went nowhere in the US - but in South Korea it sold very well, I saw it all over the place. Your claim was that "everybody believed they [lots of buttons] were essential". Clearly not true.
Stop moving the goal posts, you make me embarrassed to be an apple user.

Here you go:
http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061009152706664

It's Larry Goldfarb's Declaration in SCO v.
IBM, where he details why he invested.

Also, see Mike Anderer's email to SCO's Chris Sontag about attracting more Microsoft money:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040304174457123

Also Anderer's statement about Microsoft's
strategy to sue Linux folk over and over
until they were out of business:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2004031219075674

Here you go:
http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061009152706664

It's Larry Goldfarb's Declaration in SCO v.
IBM, where he details why he invested.

Also, see Mike Anderer's email to SCO's Chris Sontag about attracting more Microsoft money:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040304174457123

Also Anderer's statement about Microsoft's
strategy to sue Linux folk over and over
until they were out of business:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2004031219075674

Here you go:
http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061009152706664

It's Larry Goldfarb's Declaration in SCO v.
IBM, where he details why he invested.

Also, see Mike Anderer's email to SCO's Chris Sontag about attracting more Microsoft money:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040304174457123

Also Anderer's statement about Microsoft's
strategy to sue Linux folk over and over
until they were out of business:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2004031219075674

How bizarre! So what exactly is it that makes it impossible to implement?

Well, for one, the OOXML specification allows binary blobs to be imbeded in the XML document, and many of the Microsoft specific blobs they embed are NOT documented anywhere. In fact, when Microsoft paid Novel to implement the OOXML specification for OpenOffice (so that MS could say theirs is not the only implimentation) the Contract dictated that Novell was NOT allowed to touch/render/interpret any binary blobs that Microsoft was currently using in their own implimentation. If you can't interpret or render everything then you can not possibly implement "the standard" in any working product. Complying 100%, with "the standard", without cheating, gives you an unworkable product right out of the gate.

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20051216153153504

Didn't we go through this already?....oh yeah:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120807133033596

I think they started developing Android way before a first release of a Android phone? From wikipedia:

> Android, Inc. was founded in Palo Alto, California, United States in October 2003 [...] Google acquired Android Inc. on August 17, 2005, making Android Inc. a wholly owned subsidiary of Google.
> On 17 November 2006, Sun announced that it would be released under the GNU General Public License (GPL), thus making it free software. This happened in large part on 8 May 2007;
> J2SE 5.0 (September 30, 2004)

So I think Palo Alto started development of Android in 2003, which at that time Java 1.4 was available.

I'm not a lawyer, but since APIs are only a dictionary of methods, classes, (i.e. of names or facts) they are not protected by the copyright law. Please go to http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=OracleGoogle to a better explanation.

Wow that's a thoughtful, complex post. Let's deal with these issues one at a time.

Para 1: Bill is gone. Bill Gates remains the chairman of the board at Microsoft, and hand-picked all the other board members - who pick the CEO and evaluate his performance, give him goals and guidance, set his pay, bonuses and options, and set policy. Bill is still very much responsible for what goes on there, and weighs in on every big decision.

Para 2: Steve Ballmer. You neglected to mention the sea of red ink that is Microsoft's Online Services Division. I happen to like the direction Steve Ballmer is taking Microsoft. Clearly this is a man with vision and purpose who is ready and able to take the company where I want it to go. It takes Marvel Comics level superpowers to get rid of this much cash flow, to destroy a 42 percent success in mobile market share from 2007 given their advantages and high hopes, to so capably destroy the morale and productivity of the world's best developers, to put a company with this much income in $55B of debt. So let's lay off of Steve-o, mmkay? I like him where he is, sweaty shirt and all.

Para 3: No more Big, Bad MS. With the OOXML debacle that nearly ruined ISO, their recent rape of Nokia, their current ongoing rape of OEMs, retail vendors of both their products and Windows PCs, their planned rape of software distributor partners, developers and competing independent software vendors and much much more they prove every day that they have not changed. Last week they confirmed they're going to murder the advertisers they bought relationships with in an acquisition by making "Do Not Track" the default in IE. Just yesterday it came out that the new replacement for Hotmail, Outlook.com is incompatible with Android. The "new kinder, gentler Microsoft" is a myth. They have now declared war on absolutely everybody on Earth, including the people who pay for their products and excepting only the Women's Temperance Union and media executives. Naturally this means I expect them to announce an embedded bittorent feature for IE that involves a drinking game next.

Para 4. Ballmer outbound. Steve Ballmer is not retiring for another seven years at least, when his last kid goes off to college.

Para 5. Immortal desktop victory. It's not enough to take ground. Once you take ground, you have to hold it. MS won mobile with 40% share too [link above], once upon a time. And now they'r

Obviously they'll take share and make money by making Windows not work as well on the hardware of their OEM competitors. That won't be hard to do as they must write the drivers for the hardware - the OEMs can't - and these days they're streaming updates so they can make your Dell PC gradually progressively worse instead of waiting for a new Windows version. This has been their go-to strategy with software competitors since, I think, 1986.

Just in case you're going to get all [citation needed] on me... Here's Microsoft's internal communications about doing this to Novell and here is the painful Novell internal emails about how Outlook 95 broke email on install for users Novell's GroupWise. These are just two recently transcribed documents of 3,600 from the Comes v. Microsoft case that was settled just a few days after the plaintiff put the documents up on their website because Microsoft failed to seal them - and they are all very, very bad. Fortunately some thoughtful people archived them.

OEMs have always known that Microsoft did this to software vendors, and they looked away because they were getting theirs. Lotus, Borland, Aldus, Ashton-Tate and many others fell the same way. Well now it's the OEMs turn to play Microsoftball blindfolded and with their legs hobbled, giving their competitor an advanced look at their strategy.

Obviously they'll take share and make money by making Windows not work as well on the hardware of their OEM competitors. That won't be hard to do as they must write the drivers for the hardware - the OEMs can't - and these days they're streaming updates so they can make your Dell PC gradually progressively worse instead of waiting for a new Windows version. This has been their go-to strategy with software competitors since, I think, 1986.

Just in case you're going to get all [citation needed] on me... Here's Microsoft's internal communications about doing this to Novell and here is the painful Novell internal emails about how Outlook 95 broke email on install for users Novell's GroupWise. These are just two recently transcribed documents of 3,600 from the Comes v. Microsoft case that was settled just a few days after the plaintiff put the documents up on their website because Microsoft failed to seal them - and they are all very, very bad. Fortunately some thoughtful people archived them.

OEMs have always known that Microsoft did this to software vendors, and they looked away because they were getting theirs. Lotus, Borland, Aldus, Ashton-Tate and many others fell the same way. Well now it's the OEMs turn to play Microsoftball blindfolded and with their legs hobbled, giving their competitor an advanced look at their strategy.

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. - Andrew S. Tanenbaum

Microsoft wields standards like an axe to lay low their foes. They are the natural enemy of interoperability - a company that built its business on being incompatible with everything they want to dominate, one corner at a time. Here, for example, is them talking about leveraging standards to dominate Novell, from the documents disclosed in Comes v. Microsoft

Microsoft got their ExFAT format accepted as a standard volume format for SD and its derivatives, and now use it to extort broad patent portfolio licensing from Android manufacturers because if it supports SDHC or uSDHC with a reasonable media size, the Android device must support ExFAT or it won't be compatible with cameras and other devices that use it. That's a clever strategy for Microsoft, but not a smart one for people who made the format standard because it ultimately makes the standard a dead end.

People who just want to move pictures from the camera to the tablet on the card must pay more now for the tablet, or buy the Microsoft supported tablet and we know what those are like. Ultimately it's destructive to the standard and costly to consumers as uSDHC BOM costs $0.07 to implement and the patent portfolio license demanded is more like $15-25 - we can't even be sure exactly what the price is as they won't even negotiate a license except under NDA. Naturally this leads to innovative devices like the Nexus 7 omitting external storage support entirely and holds back progress in the field. It encourages wifi-attached cameras to avoid the problem. The standard becomes a trap that allows one participant in the market to control its direction. Obviously this is not the purpose of standards.

Post the OOXML debacle this is well understood, and nobody who wants their standard taken seriously would align with Microsoft. The ISO may take a decade to repair the damage from that one where resources deployed to put over the standard involved not just dirty dealing, but deploying such heavy hitters as heads of state.

Microsoft is no longer the 800lb gorilla of IT, casting the long shadow they once did. Even Apple swings more weight than them now. Android phones moved more units and profits than their Windows PC OEMs did last quarter. They don't get to make the rules any more. For the rest of us that's a good thing because they really suck at it. It's like playing Calvinball with Calvin, or any game with a six-year-old: rule 1 is they always get to win.

/Why yes, I did hide this comment down low in the thread on purpose.

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. - Andrew S. Tanenbaum

Microsoft wields standards like an axe to lay low their foes. They are the natural enemy of interoperability - a company that built its business on being incompatible with everything they want to dominate, one corner at a time. Here, for example, is them talking about leveraging standards to dominate Novell, from the documents disclosed in Comes v. Microsoft

Microsoft got their ExFAT format accepted as a standard volume format for SD and its derivatives, and now use it to extort broad patent portfolio licensing from Android manufacturers because if it supports SDHC or uSDHC with a reasonable media size, the Android device must support ExFAT or it won't be compatible with cameras and other devices that use it. That's a clever strategy for Microsoft, but not a smart one for people who made the format standard because it ultimately makes the standard a dead end.

People who just want to move pictures from the camera to the tablet on the card must pay more now for the tablet, or buy the Microsoft supported tablet and we know what those are like. Ultimately it's destructive to the standard and costly to consumers as uSDHC BOM costs $0.07 to implement and the patent portfolio license demanded is more like $15-25 - we can't even be sure exactly what the price is as they won't even negotiate a license except under NDA. Naturally this leads to innovative devices like the Nexus 7 omitting external storage support entirely and holds back progress in the field. It encourages wifi-attached cameras to avoid the problem. The standard becomes a trap that allows one participant in the market to control its direction. Obviously this is not the purpose of standards.

Post the OOXML debacle this is well understood, and nobody who wants their standard taken seriously would align with Microsoft. The ISO may take a decade to repair the damage from that one where resources deployed to put over the standard involved not just dirty dealing, but deploying such heavy hitters as heads of state.

Microsoft is no longer the 800lb gorilla of IT, casting the long shadow they once did. Even Apple swings more weight than them now. Android phones moved more units and profits than their Windows PC OEMs did last quarter. They don't get to make the rules any more. For the rest of us that's a good thing because they really suck at it. It's like playing Calvinball with Calvin, or any game with a six-year-old: rule 1 is they always get to win.

/Why yes, I did hide this comment down low in the thread on purpose.

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. - Andrew S. Tanenbaum

Microsoft wields standards like an axe to lay low their foes. They are the natural enemy of interoperability - a company that built its business on being incompatible with everything they want to dominate, one corner at a time. Here, for example, is them talking about leveraging standards to dominate Novell, from the documents disclosed in Comes v. Microsoft

Microsoft got their ExFAT format accepted as a standard volume format for SD and its derivatives, and now use it to extort broad patent portfolio licensing from Android manufacturers because if it supports SDHC or uSDHC with a reasonable media size, the Android device must support ExFAT or it won't be compatible with cameras and other devices that use it. That's a clever strategy for Microsoft, but not a smart one for people who made the format standard because it ultimately makes the standard a dead end.

People who just want to move pictures from the camera to the tablet on the card must pay more now for the tablet, or buy the Microsoft supported tablet and we know what those are like. Ultimately it's destructive to the standard and costly to consumers as uSDHC BOM costs $0.07 to implement and the patent portfolio license demanded is more like $15-25 - we can't even be sure exactly what the price is as they won't even negotiate a license except under NDA. Naturally this leads to innovative devices like the Nexus 7 omitting external storage support entirely and holds back progress in the field. It encourages wifi-attached cameras to avoid the problem. The standard becomes a trap that allows one participant in the market to control its direction. Obviously this is not the purpose of standards.

Post the OOXML debacle this is well understood, and nobody who wants their standard taken seriously would align with Microsoft. The ISO may take a decade to repair the damage from that one where resources deployed to put over the standard involved not just dirty dealing, but deploying such heavy hitters as heads of state.

Microsoft is no longer the 800lb gorilla of IT, casting the long shadow they once did. Even Apple swings more weight than them now. Android phones moved more units and profits than their Windows PC OEMs did last quarter. They don't get to make the rules any more. For the rest of us that's a good thing because they really suck at it. It's like playing Calvinball with Calvin, or any game with a six-year-old: rule 1 is they always get to win.

/Why yes, I did hide this comment down low in the thread on purpose.

They'd love to, but apparently the judge likes telling Samsung what evidence they can't present. Refer to the Groklaw article linked to from /. a day or two ago.