Slashdot Mirror
Caldera and Microsoft Settle Lawsuit
Hallow writes "While terms of the agreement remain confidential, according to a C:Net story, Caldera and Microsoft have settled out of court with Microsoft making a one-time only payment of about $150 million USD. This is much lower than the 1.6 billion in damages Caldera was seeking." Well, yes. Personally, I don't think Microsoft likes their chances in court these days.
.
As I rifled through that evidence, it seems to me that the DR-DOS detection was not the only evidence in the case. I felt it was key in that it identified DR-DOS as particulary a target of Microsoft's plan to cement its grip on PC OEMs. Its clear, however, that Caldera's complaint is about more than one act, unlike your defense.
never saw a shipping customer
It was seen by a group even more important than the OS end-user: It was seen by developers and integrators interested in using DR-DOS. I'm sure Microsoft views these guys as customers, doesn't it? In an emerging technology market, their decisions steer the masses. I was there, developing Windows software, using DR-DOS. I remember the uncertainty. I knew the potential that any company had to make its products not work well with another. It would not have taken a big problem to dissuade me from supporting DR-DOS.
something so patently unjust
Like patenting Style Sheets after the original CSS proposal?
And then when I think about Caldera coldly calculating on this extortion as they bought DR-DOS
Sure, lets not think about the scores of hardware / OEM clientel feeling trapped, tallying the potential economic loss from cliff pricing, unbundling Windows from MSDOS, or of simply getting on Joachim Kempin's list. Now those are some cold calculations.
proving I'm not a devil
No proof needed: I know many fine folks hired by Redmond. I hope you won't take these args personally.
I'm not an employee of either company. But I was a DR-DOS user when this stuff went down. Some comments, if I may:
1) MS used this very error message as a springboard for a serious FUD campaign. Microsoft convinced people that Windows-on-DRDOS was even more unstable than Windows-on-MSDOS.
2) The peice of code responsible for this was encrypted. Now, pray tell, why go to extreme lengths to hide the code if it was legitimate?
But that wasn't the only leg the lawsuit stood on. There was also the minor issue of per-processor licensing and other predatory pricing schemes designed to keep DR-DOS out of the OEM market.
So drown your sorrows in free coke and stock options. You get _no_ sympathy from me.
Didn't MS invest $150 mil in Apple to avoid some legal issues? It must be the most money M$ Legal Dept can take out of petty cash.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
...that Microsoft didn't have the guts to stand up for itself. I don't blame them, given how unfairly they've been treated in other cases, but I see no reason Microsoft should pay a cent to these vultures.
Consider the implications of this lawsuit. It alleges that Microsoft is guilty of producing a product that is compatible with one of its other products, and incompatible with a competing product. How is that a crime? It happens all the time, and when anyone other than Microsoft does it, no one even notices. But apperantly, now that Microsoft has been declared a "monopoly," it has to play by an entirely different set of rules.
At the very least, this strikes me as retroactive law, something I thought was outlawed by the Constitution. Microsoft in the early 90's was not aware it was a "monopoly," and in fact it was far from clear that they would be able to maintain their dominance in the market, much less expand it. They were still going at it with both Apple and OS/2, and either of them could easily have beaten MS if they had played their cards right. To punish MS for being a monopoly at a time when it was not generally agreed that it was a monopoly is ludicrous.
Even if they are a monopoly, I don't see how the above can be considered a crime. If I write a piece of software and I've only tested it in Windows, it might be perfectly reasonable for me to only allow it to run under Windows, to ensure that the users get a consistent experience. If someone comes out with a Windows variant, I don't see any obligation on my part to support that variant, and in fact, if I haven't tested it on that variant, it might be reasonable for me to refuse to allow it to run on that variant to make sure there are no unnecessary bugs. This logic doesn't change when the company concerned is Microsoft.
I'm not familiar with the details of the case, but I don't see any way Microsoft's actions could be considered illegal. I'm not even sure there's anything unethical about refusing to make one's product compatible with that of a competitor, whether one has a "monopoly" or not.
Obviously, the lawyers didn't agree with you. I find it humorous that a Microsoft employee who has no law training, and probably hasn't studied any of the evidence of the case, apart from what the press reported, thinks that he knows better then the lawyers how the case can be handled. Either two things have happened here. You are blowing hot air around, or Microsoft hired some lousy lawyers. Somethings telling me that the first guess is probably more correct.
If the lawyers felt that settling was the best legal decision, then I'd guess that they know better then me. The lawyers probably spent hundreds of hours studying the case, and the merits of it. Who are you to claim that they are idiots?
Back to the topic at hand, just today I was examining the "evidence"Yes, let's.
Here's the dialog you're all gloating over without having read:If you think that that "dialog" was the only thing the case was about, then no wonder you are confused. Is that what the internal memo told you to believe the case was about? IMHO, that was probably the weakest part of the case, which was probably why Microsoft decided to blow it way out of proportion and focus just on that. Much like how they spewed out garbage about "Freedom to Innovate" during the anti-trust trial, when the anti-trust trial had nothing ot do with their freedom to innovate.
-BrentIf Microsoft had lost the Caldera case -- if it had gotten to the point where a jury reached a verdict -- there would be a legal precedent on the books. Microsoft has managed to avoid that so far, always stalling or settling before anything goes in the record.
(Microsoft went to verdict in the Bristol case, but they won. There was only a preliminary injunction, since overturned, in Sun's Java case. Of course, the original DOJ case against Microsoft was settled.)
Jackson's finding of fact is preliminary; if he never reaches endgame (not even the finding of law, but an actual verdict with remedy/punishment), it's so much hearsay.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
It doesn't matter what they agreed. We'll never know. As far as anyone other than Microsoft and Caldera is concerned, this case just went "poof" and disappeared.
<sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr
I have discussed the antitrust topics with konstant in the past. And I don't believe him to be unfairly biased at all!
How many Red Hat or AOL/Netscape employees who would love to see Microsoft drowned in litigation reply to this topic without such honesty? And they have every right to. Even if this good man konstant declined to mention his employer... perhaps, as a human with knowledge and feelings about this case has a right to speak. He has made no secret of his affiliations in the past anyway. And he raises a good point about the buying of a company just to prop up a letigious lawsuit against a rival! Read: AOL buys Netscape or Microsoft invests in Apple... etc...
In short, I'd like to say: "Listen to the message, and remember the source doesn't matter if the logic is valid!" Perhaps he can add something good regardless.
Personally I think $150 million is a valid amount to settle for and mutually beneficial to both parties, except of course for Novell Systems!
-Ben
You're lookig at it the wrong way. DR-DOS was sold as a financial asset, not just an operating system.
Novell had the right to sue Microsoft, but had better things to do with its time, or maybe couldn't afford to antagonize MS, or whatever. For whatever reason, Novell wasn't interested in pursuing a lawsuit, but nonetheless the potential for a lawsuit was a financial asset which the officers had a duty to do something with, if only to liquidate it at a fraction of its potential value.
It's just like selling your receivables to a collection agency. The customer is not off the hook because you struck the debt from your books.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You should have already disclosed this when posting as yourself (ie not an AC). I work for a large corporation, and when commenting on a story involving my company, I always mention it, as do many other /.'ers. I may choose to post my comment anonymously (we're not supposed to comment publicly on certain things), but I always make the point.
/. -- but because you didn't tell the whole truth.
Reviewing your User Info, I see no less than 9 MS-related comments (not including this one) over the last few weeks. None of them mentioned that you are a MS employee, although it was highly relevant.
Posts from this account can never be trusted again. Not because you are a MS employee -- I have no personal grudge against Microsoft, and think it's a positive thing that MS employees read and post on
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
I think Caldera stood a good chance to win a much larger settlement and to send Microsoft an important lesson: They will be held accountable to past illegal activities. I guess in their eyes that $150 million is better than nothing, considering what they paid for Dr-DOS.
I hope the Feds and States don't cave in.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
I'm going to blow my cover, such as it is, and state flat-out that I'm a Microsoft employee. And as a worker at MS, let me say that I am feel than a little pissed and betrayed by this settlement.
:) I just so happen to work at Microsoft and be kind of geeky. Imagine that.
Now, before you say anything, let me quell your paranoid delusions. I'm not paid to troll slashdot or anything like that (in fact, don't tell my boss my karma is in triple digits
Back to the topic at hand, just today I was examining the "evidence" Caldera was presenting in its suit against us in relation to the article posted earlier about the company. BTW, I consider Caldera's earlier post a rather cynical manipulation of the slashdot machine to drum up hype. They obviously wanted as many Linux eyes as possible watching their site before they changed the DNS redirection to www.drdos.org.
Having read the evil error dialog in question I simply cannot believe we would settle for even a penny in damages. In fact, I'm outraged that we let Caldera bully us into any money whatsoever. I personally think they should pay us for wasting our time.
Here's the dialog you're all gloating over without having read:
-----------------------------
Non-fatal error detected: error #4D53
(Please contact Windows 3.1 beta support.)
* Press ENTER to continue.
ENTER=Continue.
-----------------------------
My response is, what the HELL? we settled over that!!! Especially when I ruminate over the fact that it only appears in a single beta, never saw a shipping customer, doesn't mention DR-DOS, AND allows you to continue unhindered. I wasn't with the company in 92 or whenever win3x was in beta, but no matter how evil they may have been and no matter how much they may have tried to kill DR-DOS, that dialog contributed exactly nothing to the process. To submit it as "evidence" is a farce!
And then when I think about Caldera coldly calculating on this extortion as they bought DR-DOS. God damn I feel betrayed by the American legal system! Not to mention my own company, which I had thought would stand up against something so patently unjust!
Whatever you might think of my company, I love the work I do. It gets more exciting every year, and I know that Office, where I work, produces the highest quality productivity software in the world, bar none. So when a thug like Caldera takes advantage of our obviously compromised legal situation to levy this blackmail on us, it makes me livid.
There are some people at the company who seem relieved by this. Those are the people who only care about stock options. Yes, I imagine our stock will go up as a result. But I'm not in it for the money because god knows they don't pay me enough. I'm in it for the ideals, just like many of you who work in the Linux world. The difference is, you get to be smug and superior and I have to spend 20% of my online time proving I'm not a devil simply because I have @microsoft.com behind my alias. Yes I'm resentful!
But hell, what can I do? Guess I'll just go drown my misery in another free Coke and wait for Steve Ballmer to rain some platitudes down on us in a live simulcast...
Live it up while you can, guys. The suits will eat you sooner or later.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Microsoft did more damage than what Caldera is talking about with this trial. First of all, Caldera was never really hurt. Caldera bought DR-DOS in 1996 (from Novell, which had gotten it from Digital Research. While Novell owned it, it was called Novell DOS), and the DAY AFTER Caldera bought it, they launched this lawsuit against Microsoft. Kind of ironic, dont you think?
Also, The main reason Digital Research or Caldera has to be mad at Microsoft, is that Microsoft ripped them off to begin with. In the 70's, Digital Research made CP/M which was used by Microsoft, and was the most popular OS of the time. In 1981 when IBM was starting their PC, they couldn't get DR to make an OS for it, so Microsoft said they would make an OS for IBM. IBM's PC had a 16-bit processor, while CP/M was only an 8 bit OS, that was the problem. Microsoft bought QDOS (quick and dirty OS) from a small company in Seattle. QDOS was only a rip off clone of CP/M which could run on 16-bit processors. Microsoft then called it Disk OS, (the name DOS was also used by IBM internally in the 70s) and gave PC-DOS to IBM royalty-free. Microsoft then made money by licensing MS-DOS to IBM clone makers.
DR-DOS was made after PC boom by Digital Research to try to gain some of the marketshare which was rightfully theirs to begin with.
MS-DOS was only an unauthorized clone of CP/M adapted to run on 16-bit processors
So, I think Caldera should be concentrating on how Microsoft sold "their" DOS.
wavy dissolve, to the court's private meeting room
MS: Well, there's something you should know. We only have 400 million dollars anyhow, and we need most of that to maintain operations. How about $10 million and we'll settle this here and now?
Caldera:*shock* You're kidding! You guys are supposed to have countless billions!
MS:*wry bitter grin* Well, that is counted _before_ paying the salaries of this year's workforce, which of course is figured _after_ paying the tax assuming the outgoes for _two_ years ago...
Caldera:*ulp* You guys are worse than _we_ are, even with Cowpland.
MS: Kinda scary, isn't it?
Caldera: You said it.
MS: So how about settling for 8 million like good fellows, huh?
Caldera: You just said ten million!
MS: Stock fluctuation. Hey, give us a break.
Caldera: Sure. 200 million.
MS: You're crazy!
Caldera: And loving it. 200 million. Now.
MS: There isn't that much.
Caldera: Do tell! 150 million, then. Or we repeat what you just said to Wall Street. Because it would amuse us.
MS: Bastards! All right. 150 million. And you better settle and not be a problem to us anymore!
Caldera: In cash.
The truth is out there....
For the sake of argument, let's assume that Microsoft unfairly crushed DR-DOS, although I'm not so certain that it is indeed the case. So, if not for Microsoft, then DR-DOS would have had a healthy spot in the marketplace against MS-DOS. If that was the case, then Caldera would never have been able to purchase DR-DOS for the chump change that they paid for it, because DR-DOS would've been a lot more valuable. If Caldera was really interested in owning DR-DOS after the fact, then it seems like it was to their benefit that Microsoft severely lowered its value so that they could buy it on the cheap. So Caldera was able to get DR-DOS at firesale prices, and then sued Microsoft for causing it to be available so cheaply in the first place. Does this seem pretty circular to anyone else out there? Gotta love lawyers...
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I know the subject sounds contradictory, but there IS a certain etiquette to suing someone: the amount you're suing for should always be higher than the actual amount you're willing to settle with. Producing an initially high figure is intended to simply get the attention of the legal department of the company you're attacking. In other words, do you really think Caldera truly expected to get $1.6G from Micros~1? Do you know anyone who has really expected to get what they sue for?
Especially against Microsoft, you would need to heavily inflate the amount you "expect" from the settled suit.
S. Kevin Chang
Database Design and Programming
Disney Televentures
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
I'm one of the few (I suppose we're few) that's taken the time to read (or at least skim) all of the lawsuit material Caldera has posted on thier site. They had Microsoft cold on violations of the law that are far more serious than anything in the DOJ trial.
While it's not surprising that Microsoft should go to extraordinary lengths to keep this from going to trial (which was due to happen next week, IIRC), it *is* surprising that Caldera would be willing to do them such a favor for such a small sum of money. (C'mon, folks, LESS THAN 1%??!)
True, a trial would have been expensive for Caldera, but I still think the Caldera trial was a far bigger threat to Microsoft (both in itself and in addition as fodder for the DOJ)than the wimpy DOJ action.
Game over, man. All you college guys go get that MCSE, because they've got carte blanche to go full speed ahead, leaving behind the twisted wreckage of what was once a healthy software industry.
On the other hand, this means open source is the last best hope, even though its ability to deliver on the promise in the non-geek space has yet to be tested. I really think in a few years, this day will mark the turning point at which everything rested on the shoulders of a penguin. A fine penguin, to be sure, but very possibly not up to the task of slaying Goliath. (Note to those that moderate down any non-glowing comment about Linux: do a reality check: how many non-geeks do you know choosing Linux? A few possibly, but not a lot just yet.)
I needed a new distro this week, and just chose Corel after three happy (well, OK, not unhappy) years with Caldera. (My innate contrarianism and the fact that I'm sadly more interested in being a user than a hacker these days makes it the right choice.) Looks like I made the right choice. Winners never quit. Quitters never win. Caldera just threw in the towel before the bell even rang.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
IIRC, the code you speak of was never provided in a release version, only beta.
9 d.htm
/., 'cuz it's bash, bash, bash.
If you don't believe me, check out this link to DDJ:
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/930
Here's a telling quote from the same article:
So whenever I've heard accusations that Microsoft practices so-called "cruel coding" to keep Windows from running on DR DOS, I look at the facts: Windows 3.1 Enhanced mode does run on DR DOS. Standard mode does not run, but that's because of a DR DOS bug acknowledged by Novell (see Undocumented DOS, Second Edition).
But then, that shiznit doesn't play on
Do anal-retentive people hyphenate 'anal retentive'?
This is such a shame....they had great documentation and really could have helped the rest of the world attempt to reign in the power of Redmond. Heck, they even had access to parts of the source code of Win95 (via a hotly contested subpeona). Now, none of Caldera's years of effort (and Novell's before them) will become part of a public court record; no precedent will be set. For that benefit ALONE MS should have coughed up FAR more $$.
But if that $30 mil influx of cash announced this morning was a big deal, five times that ammount still sounds pretty good. I guess Noorda doesn't have the staying power he used to.....
I was really looking forward to this trial, even more than the DOJ case.
C'est la vie.
I can't sit here and read this crap without feeling pissed as hell. Who the fsck moderated this up?
.
I don't blame the poster for his words because he admits to being young and not being at MSFT when this story broke...but to moderate it up is just obscene.
Moderators and all interested parties please read this article from a September 1993 issue of Doctor Dobb's Journal and decide for yourself if Caldera had a reason to sue for billion$ and if this was a frivolous lawsuit. Also remember that even though the offending code never shipped to consumers it was shipped to the trade press, who then would review Dr-DOS and in their reviews state that certain error messages popped up...(effectively killing Dr-DOS as a viable option for anyone who planned to buy it based on favorable reviews). Secondly, MSFT would not risk shipping the offending code to consumers less some enterprising hacker discover the truth about the error message, but they failed to account for enterprising hackers in the trade press
PS: DDJ is a first-class magazine. A bit over my head sometimes but first class nonetheless.
Furthermore, the math that folks have been doing (i.e. 3 cents per share * # shares microsoft) is flawed. Nobody really knows how much MS is actually paying, and nobody is going to tell either. I don't know, but I feel very confident that the total amount is much more than the alledged 150 million. Of course I don't know, since nobody around here will talk numbers (per the agreement with MS).
I am an employee of Lineo, but I'm not speaking for them (as if they would trust me).
-Erik -- --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
Bryan Sparks, CEO of Caldera said, "We are happy to have finally settled this lawsuit to the satisfaction of both companies" while casting furtive glances at the two hulking, brutish men in black suits, dark glasses and Microsoft employee badges standing behind him.
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
Caldera, on their site http://www.drdos.com gives an answer as to why they settled and what they think they were achieving here
An excerpt from their Q&A page:
Q: I thought Caldera filed the case based on principals (or to change behavior), not just to collect money. What did you accomplish?
A: We actually believe that we accomplished several things during this process.
1. We led out on the recent series of investigations into Microsoft's business practices. When we filed our case in July 1996, no other private company or government agency was publicly investigating Microsoft's monopoly-related behavior. Netscape, SUN, Bristol, the DOJs recent case, and several class action suits all followed our filing.
2. We told the story. Many new facts regarding Microsoft's business conduct were made public during the lengthy pre-trial period of our case.
3. We stood up against them. We believe that our actions will have a deterring effect against future misconduct. We have demonstrated that it is possible to successfully file a lawsuit against Microsoft and have a positive result.
4. We helped to brand Linux as a legitimate competitor to Windows. Our lawsuit, combined with the governments case, helped publicize and legitimize the Linux brand. We believe that as a result of these lawsuits, Caldera Systems, Lineo and other Linux companies are stronger competitors to Microsoft, now and in the future.