Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Should We Follow Novell v. MS in Detail?

Posted by samzenpus on from the pay-attention-to-stuff dept.

e6003 writes "Groklaw has a fascinating article written by a retired attorney. In short, he believes FOSS advocates should be following the recently announced Novell anti-trust case against Microsoft with as much vigour as we do the SCO-IBM case. Whilst the latter is to all intents and purposes settled in favour of the Good Guys, the article points out how Novell v. MS is far harder to call. Evidence produced during this new case, he argues, may be valuable for proving anti-competitive intent on Microsoft's behalf should MS (or a proxy) go on a patent rampage against FOSS. Finally, the article points out that Microsoft either destroys evidence itself (see the Burst.com case) or requires evidence to be destroyed as part of settlements (as in the Caldera DR-DOS case)."

1 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The "Good Guys" by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ---Your reading it wrong. That statement was in reference to SCO, and yes, Slashdot as a community is generally of the opinion that SCO are "Bad Guys". I'm not sure I 100% agree with that,

    Bad to whom? IBM and Linux in general.. though it doesnt seem too good for them now.

    ---but I certainly am more willing to accept that characterization than I am to accept it refering to Microsoft, the way you seem to have taken it. Microsoft is motivated by profits and little else,

    Any Public company has a FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION to make money in the interest of the stockholders. If a company does not put profits in front of everything, they are sued for failure to communicate fiduciary duty for the stockholders.

    ---but they do continue to produce some things which benefit the public at large to some (perhaps insufficient for the impact they have) degree.

    All that matters is that they make the most money they can. The products are a means to that.

    ---SCO on the other hand really isn't doing enough for the world to merit sucking up my air.

    The directors at SCO still have that fiduciary responsibility. If making lawsuits and collecting are how they do it, they satisfy that responsibility, even if they no longer "create" a product.

    --