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.
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.