SCOTUS Ends Novell's Anti-Trust Cast Against Microsoft

walterbyrd (182728) writes in with news about the end of the line for a Novell anti-trust claim against Microsoft. "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday brought an end to Novell Inc's antitrust claims against Microsoft Corp that date back 20 years to the development of Windows 95 software. By declining to hear Novell's appeal, the court left intact a 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from September 2013 in favor of Microsoft. The court of appeals unanimously affirmed the dismissal of Novell Inc's claims that Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act when it decided not to share its intellectual property while developing its Windows 95 operating system. Novell was seeking more than $3 billion."

Comments

way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[thaylin]

There was more to it than just not sharing its IP, such as deliberately misleading the company, and changing the APIs mid stream to break interoperability.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[jandrese]

I'm not surprised by this ruling at all. The current Supreme Court is very friendly towards businesses acting badly.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[jedidiah]

That phrase has quite a lot of bogus spin attached to it. They take something pretty mundane and turn it completely inside out. Based on the phrase as stated, you would think that Novell was expecting Microsoft to give up all of it's trade secrets when all it was really expecting was the details of a standard public interface.

This is just one of the many bad side effects of an overly expansive notion of "intellectual property" and of corporate privelege in general.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Bill_the_Engineer]

This is just one of the many bad side effects of an overly expansive notion of "intellectual property" and of corporate privelege in general.

You jumped to a pretty big conclusion there.

I think it's more applicable to say that this had more to do with Microsoft's ability to drag the case as long as possible and SCOTUS having little incentive to review a case that spans two decades with a dead product on one side and a dead corporation on the other.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The current Supreme Court is very friendly towards businesses acting badly.

The current Supreme Court is very friendly towards businesses paying them well.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Charliemopps]

Wow... and here I though both litigants were multibillion dollar businesses.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[alen]

to be fair, anything before Windows 95/NT4 was such crap you had to change API's to make the OS somewhat useful

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[lord_mike]

They ruled unanimously against the NFL in their antitrust suit. This SCOTUS is very business friendly, but they aren't monolithic.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Your.Master]

I don't understand. If the interface was public, then by definition its details were shared. If there were details that were not shared, then those details were never part of the public interface contract, again by definition.

Is the problem that they didn't share the public interfaces with them with appropriate timing, or that they *thought* it should be a public interface when it wasn't, or something else I'm not getting?

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Psychopath]

I'm not surprised by this ruling at all. The current Supreme Court is very friendly towards businesses acting badly.

What ruling? They declined to hear the case because there isn't a constitutional challenge.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[unrtst]

Your uid is too high. Go read up on it.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

or something else I'm not getting?

From the end of the actual trial.
Apparently, WordPerfect for Windows 3.11 was not compatible with Windows 95. Novell was outraged that Microsoft did not retain whatever it was that WordPerfect required exactly how it was in 3.11. Novell asserted that Microsoft broke compatibility solely to give MSWord a headstart on Windows 95 systems, that changing unpublished system APIs had no other possible benefit for an operating system.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Sun]

The Novel narrative is this:
Microsoft shared the interface with Novel during the beta, encouraging it to rely on it. Then, a few months before release, and after WordPerfect was already dependent on those interfaces, Microsoft changed them and declined to share the new ones with Novel. When Windows 95 finally came out, MS did, in fact, publish those interfaces, but by then it was too late for Novel to ship WordPerfect with Windows 95's launch.

Had MS not shared those interfaces to begin with, Novel could have worked with an internal implementation.

Shachar

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[hAckz0r]

No, what they did was to dup Novell into developing a complex product using an API that they provided, but planned on changing at the 12th hour to defeat their competition out of the gate. Their goal was to make Novell look so bad in the eyes of the consumer that nobody would ever trust the product again. This is pure maliciousness and way over the top. Its one thing to simply not give information, its entirely another to mislead and make your competition do what you tell them, and then change it so that it is guaranteed not to work.

.
Bottom line: If you shake hands with Bill Gates you had better count your fingers.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

WERE being the key word. Novell's parent, Attachmate Group is only $1.2B

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

Any evidence of Supreme Court justices taking kickbacks from litigants?

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... and here I though both litigants were multibillion dollar businesses.

Microsoft is a giant compared to Novell. Anyone who's not a shill, moron or Microsoft apologist understands that. Maybe you want to find a high school student and match them up against UFC heavyweight.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that members of the Supreme Court are accepting bribes? Or just what are you saying?

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is a very old and established enormous corporation. Microsoft has behind it decades and literally hundreds of billions of dollars of lobbying efforts. Political donations to both established parties combined with the politicized nature in the selection of judges and you got yourself a favorable judicial system.

In Europe, it's mostly illegal for any business to directly donate to any political party. The parties are often funded directly from tax revenue in relation to their seats in the parliament. This is to keep them and legislative processes non-biased and democratic.

It would be impossible to think either the Democrats or Republicans would want to change the current system. The only way out towards a non-oligarchic government is to vote for more parties into Congress. Be it left, right, center or whatever, the fact that more parties are included in legislative processes, makes it helluva more transparent.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Ralph Wiggam]

On Slashdot, all accusations against government officials are deemed to be true. Evidence is not required.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Ralph Wiggam]

This case is significantly older than Slashdot. Is 700k really a braggable UID now?

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[westlake]

I'm not surprised by this ruling at all. The current Supreme Court is very friendly towards businesses acting badly.

The Supreme Court is interested only in cases which offer the best opportunity to debate and decide substantial issues of federal constitutional law. The court receives around 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year. Seventy to eighty will go on to oral argument,

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[ConceptJunkie]

On Slashdot, all accusations against government officials are deemed to be true. Evidence is not required.

Yeah, but they pretty much are... oh, wait, I see what you did there.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[ConceptJunkie]

I'd make a snide comment about kids these days, but some 3- or 4-digit UID is going to just put me in my place.

That sad thing about the whole "public interface" issue is that the damage was irrevocably done long before Windows 95 was made. By 1995, Microsoft had so cemented their dominance that no remediation by the courts would have made a difference... and of course, the courts and the DoJ ended up letting them off with a slap on the wrist.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[mwvdlee]

Back when Novell started the litigation, they were pretty huge as well.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand. If the interface was public, then by definition its details were shared.

Microsoft released the details of the public API. Then they changed the API, without letting anyone outside Microsoft know of the changes to the still supposedly public API. Nothing difficult to understand there.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[jandrese]

That the current supreme court's decisions almost invariably side with the bigger business currently. By the way, Aereo is fucked.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[westlake]

The current Supreme Court is very friendly towards businesses paying them well.

Bribery remains the geek's all-purpose explanation for any legal or political decision he doesn't like. It's a sign of laziness if not impotence.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

The parties are often funded directly from tax revenue in relation to their seats in the parliament.

Imagine how much inertia this creates. Mind officially blown.

"Where we going today?"
"Same place we went yesterday."

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[cusco]

literally hundreds of billions of dollars of lobbying efforts

I don't think you understand what the word 'literally' means. You're off by at least three orders of magnitude. And "very old"??? Ford is an old company, US Steel is an old company, Barclays Bank is a very old company, Hudsons Bay Trading is a very old company. Microsoft barely makes it beyond "not new".

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

It was obviously supposed to be 'millions' instead of 'billions', but yeah. I would call a 40 year-old company 'very old' especially on today's standards.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[FlyHelicopters]

That all jives with my memory of the case from the 90s...

And I keep thinking the same thing today as I did back then, why would Novell have trusted MS in the first place?

Trust, but verify...

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[nurb432]

the details of a standard public interface.

Still, is a company *required* to give those details away? Its mine, i should be able to restrict its access if i want to.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[sribe]

Their goal was to make Novell look so bad in the eyes of the consumer that nobody would ever trust the product again. This is pure maliciousness and way over the top.

Don't forget deliberately putting bugs into their conversion to/from WordPerfect format in order to push customers away from using both.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Rob Y.]

I think some of the issues had to do with the "appearance of corruption" - and even there the current court thinks millions of dollars in political contributions coupled with obvious enhanced access don't rise to the level of appearance of corruption. That leaves solid evidence of quid pro quo shennanigans, which will never be produceable. I.e., they've simply defined corruption away in order to rule the way their politics dictate. Except, of course, where their politics dictate otherwise (e.g. Bush v. Gore).

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Rob Y.]

You can bet, that if the Microsoft antitrust findings weren't essentially dropped by the Bush justice department (after having been partially voided by a flaky accusation of judicial bias - for calling Bill Gates a liar in a magazine interview after he, you know, lied in court), they would've taken that one on appeal.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Rob Y.]

Because, at the time, Word Perfect was a big player. This was before Microsoft began bundling in a 'free' copy of Office with Windows (i.e. OEM deals that made it nearly impossible to buy a PC that didn't 'come with' MSOffice), which is what ultimately killed WordPerfect. But making them late to the Windows 95 party didn't help either.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

You can, unless you are a monopoly. In this case, Microsoft was abusing its monopoly in the OS market to force an unfair advantage into the Office Suite market. As a bonus, IIRC, Novell paid a fair chunk of change for access to those interfaces, and Microsoft deliberately sabotaged them.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[nobuddy]

Yes, and the SCOTUS did not hear it then, did they. Today is April 28, 2014. today's Novell is what matters.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[nobuddy]

Thomas is corrupt, a total money shill that votes the way he is told, and pushes the rest that way. His wife makes millions as a Koch lobbyist, yet he never recuses himself from cases that involve the people that pay his wife millions.
Relevant example (there are many many more like this):
http://crooksandliars.com/karo...

Scalia is also a corporate shill. He attends the Koch right-wing money events, and consistently votes the way the Koch brothers tell him to.
http://www.politicususa.com/20...

Roberts, Alito, and kennedy are less corrupt, but do not hesitate to take tremendous pay for "speaking engagements" at the right wing events and vote consistently with Koch interests.
http://www.politicususa.com/20...

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is pure maliciousness and way over the top."
Is that supported by facts (ie, documents) from the court case or is that just your opinion?

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that but the summary makes it sound like the law suit was over interfaces for a competitive product that Novell was not developing. That is to say that the previous judges claimed that MS was under 'no obligation to provide interfaces to a competitor'...but Novell was NOT competing in the OS space it was competing here in the Word Processing space. The OS was the fundamental product that all other Software on Windows relied on, MS Office included, MS IS under an 'obligation' to provide the interfaces that they expected all other software to adhere to, that MS customers themselves EXPECTED them to provide so that other vendors could provide applications. MS promoted the OS as the fundamental controller of interaction with devices & end users they had an obligation to the end users much less the 3rd party vendors to provide accurate & timely information on the public interfaces they expected 3rd party vendors to use to create applications.

Re: way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

Opinion, but _based on_ court documents.

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20041115070558892

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Your.Master]

Thank you.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

So in that case if Microsoft were as big and bad as everybody here claims they would be getting absolutely annihilated in the EU vs the US ... but they arent.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

We are talking about the U.S.A. here. Politicians are allowed to take money from "interest groups" and its the major source of their funding. Prosecutor are promoted according to convictions obtained, taxation rules further the accumulation of money in few hands, and two of the most important luxury items to buy with extraordinary amounts of money are politicians and court cases (a normal citizen cannot afford a full court case, let alone a successful defense, and has to swallow any "plea deal" that the prosecutor considers useful for his career independent of actual guilt).

Corruption is the "all-purpose explanation for any legal or political decision" a non-rich person doesn't like since it is corruption that is the basic motor of the U.S.A.'s political and legal systems. It is a mistake to let money rule both the law-making as well as the law-speaking processes.

While not every cog is necessarily greased individually, the whole way that the machinery is fit together makes sure that the grease finds its way.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

By 1995, Microsoft had so cemented their dominance that no remediation by the courts would have made a difference... and of course, the courts and the DoJ ended up letting them off with a slap on the wrist.

More like a high-five. It was probably not even necessary to grease the palm individually for that: they are in good standing.

Re: way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the document, it turns out that the only substantial complaint of Novell was that they didn't get access to the final version of the Windows 95 shell namespace extensions. These are not actually necessary to create a word processor and you don't even need to know these to allow users to use these namespace extensions from within your application. (I am a professional software developer who has coded against the Win32 API a lot. I won't praise it, it's bad, it really is, but you don't need special knowledge of the namespace extensions to still have them work in file dialogues for example.) The only legitimate use for this knowledge for Novell would be to create an alternate shell for Windows 95.
Novell intended to create a WordPerfect where users could stay inside WordPerfect for all tasks, not just word processing tasks, enabling Novell to compete in the operating system arena (actually the shell, but for the end user this is what it boils down to). Why would Novell want WordPerfect to compete with an operating system that was required for WordPerfect to run? My best guess is that they would release this extended WordPerfect for Unix as well. But whatever the case may be, the Supreme Court has judged that Microsoft couldn't be expected to dig its own grave.
Incidentally, Microsoft did do a very decent job of sharing Windows 95's API with developers, which was one of the main drivers behind the new operating system's success. Changes still happened between the beta version and the final release, but I know from experience how much time this saved for Novell and they should be grateful for that. I have ported things in the past and I can tell you that if Novell had decided to roll their own stand-in API, WordPerfect wouldn't have been released as early as it did.
Even with the help they got, Novell managed to release a buggy application, which given their reputation was not unexpected. They also failed to significantly improve WordPerfect even though it was lagging behind even Word 6 for Windows 3.1. They never even added Unicode support, which is completely unacceptable in this day and age for any application, let alone a word processor. While Word was making leaps and bounds, WordPerfect just sat there.
All in all, it was Novell's own fault that it lost the word processor war.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[expatriot]

Then it was not "literally" but "figuratively" and only relative to newer companies was it "very old". Other than that your post was very accurate and literally filled with eels.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

a massive oversimplification on your part. This happened during Beta, MS DID make the API public on release of windows, but it was different to what Novel was playing with during beta. Regardless word perfect was already dead and buried by then due to mismanagement of the product and whether Novel had gotten an extra couple of months to play with them or not would still be irrelevant.

Re: way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[ferret4]

Yeah imagine that: they'd have to actually ask the people who voted for them what they should do rather than just read a memo from Big Business Inc.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

And their definition of justice is "a decision in your favor."

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Miser]

I would hope not. :)

To stay on topic, I am really torn. Part of me wants Microsoft to go away, or at least get diminished to the point where businesses and folks are forced to make a *real* choice on what software to purchase (other than "no one is fired for buying Microsoft"). There is just SO much more to technology than just the Windows monoculture.

However, their busted stuff pays my bills, so I really cannot complain too much. :)

-Miser

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is with the hard on for the Koch brothers around here lately? Like Soros and other rich elites aren't investing heavily in Left wing interests? Guess it's election time, and the propaganda machine is in top gear.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[markhb]

WordPerfect 5 and 6 were a mess. WP pre-Novell had long made a habit of creating its own printer drivers, stemming partly from the fact that they supported so many wildly disparate platforms (they started on AOS/VS... now go look that up and get off my lawn!) in the pre-GUI era that they needed an internally consistent set of interfaces to work with. Once Windows started providing things like printer management, even in the 3.11 era, they had a hard time switching over and tended to GPF all over the place. I'm not absolving MS from any dirty tricks they may have pulled, but it's not like WP was building something that people outside certain vertical markets (they still rule the legal world AFAIK) couldn't move on from.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court is interested only in cases which offer the best opportunity to debate and decide substantial issues of federal constitutional law.

This is only true if we include "screw up the legal system for the majority of society by ignoring ethical conflicts of interest that work to the benefit of the legal profession" in the concept of "decide substantial issues".

For example, no ethical Supreme Court would have allowed the lawyers working for Congress to add over 2000 pages of new law in the form of ObamaCare. If the federal government has some role to play in health care, it can certainly be taken care of in a law with a few dozen pages. Using over 2000 pages to do this is simply a matter of creating artificial demand for the services of the legal profession - grossly unethical conduct by every legal professional involved in writing or upholding the law.

The right to ethical practice of law is a right retained by the people under the 9th Amendment, and the right the Supreme Court routinely ignores (in violation of the oaths the justices swear to uphold the Bill of Rights). Rarely if ever do the legal ethics implications of decisions appear in rulings. Ethics is the ugly duckling of the legal system.

Of course, in a corrupt political system, nobody will get selected for the Supreme Court if they are likely to make waves regarding legal ethics or entrenched corruption.

Re: way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[Anonymous Coward]

The Koch brothers put $4 14 million in to the last election cycle. Sorts put $2mil. If you think this is the sane thing, please refrain from voting. We already have enough morons at the polls.

Re:way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[jbo5112]

In the US, tax funds that go to political parties for elections are used to keep the established crooks in power. The media and state/local governments refuse to do enough to call the federal government on their wrongs, but with the rise of the Internet media, things seem to be slowly changing. Traditional news (CNN, FOX News, etc.) seems more concerned about pushing agendas that few want and pushing party lines to the point where Democrats and Republicans will fight each other on issues where they actually agree.

Re: way to over simplify the issue win the summery

[jbo5112]

Or just write laws to keep the government money from going to somebody else.

Casting Away

[WiiVault]

What kind of "cast" did they use? Is there a new spell-book that us magicians can buy that where we can learn a spell to make /. editors proofread articles?

Re:Casting Away

[Anonymous Coward]

ValuableCampaignContributor* p_victim static_cast<CorporateCriminal*>(p_microsoft);

Don't forget the NULL check, though.

Re:Casting Away

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like someone needs to pay attention in civics class and stay off slashdot for a while.

1) Supreme court judges are appointed not elected.

2) Supreme court judges pretty much have the job for life.

The end of our industry

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans have finally achieved their goal of killing the software industry. Now, only Microsoft can write software for Windows. Time to start looking for a plumbing job. It sucks to see the Republicans destroy this country like this.

Re:The end of our industry

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't think this is as big of a political issue as you say. If people cannot get their software to run on Windows, they will need to switch to OSX or Linux. Windows therefore has an incentive to not just change things without a reason.

Re:The end of our industry

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a card-carrying TEA party member, and I use primarily Linux / Apple. God bless the USA and why the fuck do I have to pay for your slobbering kids to go to school?

Re:The end of our industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Just recently, Microsoft did a study into why the best programmers don't have jobs while the morons, that are almost always married, had jobs and often worked at large companies like Microsoft. One reason here in Seattle is because of the Republican-created tax system that screws developers. An unmarried developer pays three times as much in taxes as a stupid married couple:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/25/pf/taxes/parents-singles-federal-taxes/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Just look at how the smartest males are shunned by females because so many of them have conservative leanings. They don't want smart, independent guys that will treat them well so they instead flock to Republicans that will abuse them. The Republicans are why the software industry was destroyed here in Seattle. Charging us three times as much taxes just to live means we won't.

Re:The end of our industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Same stupid troll post over and over. Don't you get tired of being called a moron?

Re:The end of our industry

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mind paying for kids to go to school. Why?

1: If they have jobs, they are not on the street vandalizing my car or robbing me.

2: Education gives them meaningful wages, so the economy sucks less.

3: Education may teach critical thinking so they might just see past the bread and circuses of today.

4: Education might give them the ability to innovate. I'm sure you are tired of Japan, China, and other countries having the cool stuff and we don't.

I'm a practical conservative. I don't eat my seed corn, and believe that with proper public schools (hint... not Common Core, and teaching things like dealing with confrontations, firearms [1], and other life skills) are a must, if the US is going to continue.

I've even thought of going with a voucher system... but that would replace failed public schools with failing corporations running private schools.

[1]: Better the kids know the reality of them than what their favorite gangsta rapper "teaches".

Re:The end of our industry

[thaylin]

There is no problem with common core itself, just with some of the implementation of it in some areas.

Re:The end of our industry

[Anonymous Coward]

The "software industry" is an over-bloated sack of shit that rivals the dot-com bust. The quicker it collapses and starts fresh, the better.

I'm a card-carrying member of the DNC.

Re:The end of our industry

[Anonymous Coward]

oh look, its Mr republicans are the cause of all of our problems. Heres a clue, get a life

Re:The end of our industry

[Curunir_wolf]

There is no problem with common core itself, just with some of the implementation of it in some areas.

Yea, yea, sure, Melinda. Your corporate-robot-factory standards are just fine, then, but some bureaucrat messed it up for you?

Re:The end of our industry

[ganjadude]

are you serious here? there is so much wrong with that statement its not even funny. first off, who are the people fighting for less taxes? the libertarians, tea party and a handful republicans. Who wants more taxes and higher taxes? the democrats.

If you want an actual solution, do away with the IRS and institute a fair or flat tax.

Re:The end of our industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being a dick just for the sake of being a dick. If you don't want your kids measured up against mine, perhaps you should have had smarter kids.

Re:The end of our industry

[thaylin]

How is a flat tax fair? I used to think it was, but then realized how it actually hurts the poor even more than the current tax structure. I am all for lower taxes, but the problem is neither side wants to give up their toys to make it happen, they just want the other sides toys to go away.

Re:The end of our industry

[Curunir_wolf]

The Republicans are why the software industry was destroyed here in Seattle. http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/2...

Too bad Seattle is such an Republican enclave - you should try to get more Democrats to move there if you prefer their tax policies.

Not that the article doesn't use some pretty skewed statistics. It compares the tax burden with 4 exemptions to that of 1. Hey, guess what, if you're supporting 1 person on 6 figures you pay more taxes than if you're supporting 4. That's what progressive taxes are supposed to do.

Re:The end of our industry

[thaylin]

What is wrong with saying a 2nd grader should know x before moving on to the 3rd grade, and a 3rd grader should know y, before moving to the 4th grade, and so on?

If I wanted to use the mirror to your logical fallacy I might say you just want students to be passed up no matter what they know?

But I wont, ill just ask you, what is wrong with the STANDARDS THEMSELVES?

And please do not come up with the usual list of proven incorrect statements, such as teachers not being involved in the standards themselves

Re:The end of our industry

[unixisc]

I dunno whether you're being facetious - doesn't show in your post, but Seattle voted some 60+% for Dems election after election. They are essentially San Francisco, North. Republicans would be lucky to win votes for dog catcher in that city

Re:The end of our industry

[Bill_the_Engineer]

It looks like you fell for the old Republicans versus Democrats ruse. Like a college football rivalry, you don't pay attention to the details but instead root for the home team while yelling disparaging remarks about the other team. Using this way of thinking, you believe every stereotype given and you are in danger of endorsing or discrediting an legislative initiative based solely is it was sponsored by a republican or a democrat.

Republicans love taxes just as much as democrats. The main difference between the two parties could be boiled down to who pays the taxes and what the government spends the money on.

Republicans prefer that the working class pay the majority of the taxes and government spend its money on national defense and corporate subsidies.This redistributes the money from the working class to the wealthy via government contracts and outright corporate welfare. They justify this by using the "job creator" story. Unfortunately its been shown that most of the new employers are small businesses whose owners aren't in the wealthy class. The wealthy do spend money but trickle down economics doesn't take globalization in consideration and therefore most of the currency is exported in exchange for cheaper goods. The wealthy tend to be more libertarian since they are self sufficient and view regulations as a cost with little benefit.

Democrats differ slightly on taxation since they want the wealthy to pay their "fair share" of the tax burden and want to lessen the tax burden on the lowest income brackets. They favor government spending on social programs and enforcement of environmental, safety and financial regulations. This sort of redistributes the money from the wealthy to the working class. Since in theory the wealthy pay more taxes and the poor receive more government benefits. Also the working class benefit from safer and cleaner working conditions and from cleaner conditions at home with safer places to place their money.

A political system with a healthy political discourse usually moderates between the two extremes. Unfortunately the vocal participants within the US political system are mainly the extremists of both parties and the public who can't be troubled with listening to anything more than a sound bite are reduced to cheering for their favorite team.

Re:The end of our industry

[ConceptJunkie]

And if we had good public education in this country that would be a good plan. The problem is that by Federalizing the education system, we've only been spreading the pain... and most large inner cities still have third-world level education systems. Mississippi brags at least they aren't Louisiana and Louisiana still brags at least they aren't Mississippi. A majority of the public still believes in astrology. To listen to a lot of people the country's leading biochemist is Jenny McCarthy. And the average voter can't explain how our government works at a 6th grade Civics class level.

The voucher system at least offers the potential for competition, something that doesn't exist today at the primary or secondary levels unless you are in the top 5-10% income bracket and can afford private school.

Re:The end of our industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you expect anything more from someone who calls himself "ganjadude"?

His libertarian tendencies result from his need to be left alone to smoke his pot.

Re:The end of our industry

[Anonymous Coward]

One reason here in Seattle is because of the Republican-created tax system that screws developers

Yeah FDR was a well renowned republican...

Re:The end of our industry

[Curunir_wolf]

What is wrong with saying a 2nd grader should know x before moving on to the 3rd grade, and a 3rd grader should know y, before moving to the 4th grade, and so on?

That's not really a good description of common core - it doesn't really do that. States can impose certain testing requirements on top of it, optionally, like Virginia's Standards of Learning (SOL), but you won't find any kind of requirement for "knowing" any objective facts in the Common Core.

But I wont, ill just ask you, what is wrong with the STANDARDS THEMSELVES? And please do not come up with the usual list of proven incorrect statements, such as teachers not being involved in the standards themselves.

That's a pretty big topic. The Common Core advocates seem to do a lot of marketing around their process for creating the standards, which includes taking a lot of existing standards (really bad ones), and pretending they're worthy of expanding upon.

I'll bring up a few of the basic issues and let you research more yourself.

Seventy-two CEOs hailing from corporations that usually like to stay out of the political fray, including Harley-Davidson, General Mills and Xerox, placed a full-page ad in the New York Times claiming that the curriculum will meet the “business community’s expectations.” That should tell you something right there: Are these companies interested in educating Americans to pursue their highest potential, or in creating a workforce beholden to the Corporate ladder?

The fundamental theme of Common Core’s English language arts (ELA) standards is a focus on non-fiction “informational texts.” The ELA standards were fashioned so that elementary students read no more than 50 percent classic literature and high school students may read only 30 percent classic literature. The other 70 percent is comprised of informational texts. The curriculum advocates a “close reading” of a text in which students are asked to analyze what they’ve read strictly from the available text without a whiff of historical context. This method teaches students to accept the information that they are given without question. It's an indoctrination technique writ large, through years of barraging students with lesson plans produced by government bureaucracies.

You can also check out some of the writing by Carol Burris, an award-winning educator that was a big proponent of Common Core until she started seeing the ugly details. Very enlightening.

Have you seen how they are teaching math under the Common Core now? The premise is that students should learn "estimating" instead of math or number theory. I guess that makes sense if you're a bureaucrat dealing with multi-million dollar budgets - as long as you're within 1 or 2% you're good. But that's not really good enough if you're trying to really learn the core principles. You should see if this makes any sense to you as a way to teach 5th graders math. I don't think it does.

You'll probably dismiss these issues as "growing pains" and issues that can be fixed over time. But we should not be experimenting on our children this way. Or they won't be able to contribute anything to the next generation of learners.

Re:The end of our industry

[ganjadude]

im not saying one is better than the other just that the current way of doing this is bad. Id be for a consumption tax, where all FINISHED goods are taxed , supply line products (componants, unfinished wood etc would not be) and only charge a tax based on consumption. If you own a jet, you get taxed more than if you own a car. you dont own are car? you get taxed even less. Roll ALL taxes into the final sales and leave it at that.

The current tax structure is unsustainable, even to the pro tax and spend crowd and the less taxes are better crowd, we have to start over and the best first step should be abolish the IRS

Re:The end of our industry

[ganjadude]

All excellent points, I make those same points quite often, I was mainly just talking about on their face. You are 100% correct however

Re:The end of our industry

[John.Banister]

I think the top brackets of wage earners face an undue burden imposed by the tax lawyer industry. I favor a flat tax (on both wages and capital gains) for the top 2.5% of income recipients at the same percentage rate as for those in the bracket just under that of the top 2.5%. The benefits of filing EZ really ought to be extended upwards.

People will say that without tax incentives, why would the "job creators" invest? But, the fact is, that everyone invests for the same reason, because it will turn a profit. If the investment won't be profitable, then easy borrowing and low taxes don't help create it. No one will invest if it's just throwing away money. If the investment is a net gain, then taxation doesn't prevent it. You still want more, and so will invest in a profitable venture to get more even if you're taxed at a higher rate.

Probably, if such a tax were imposed, personal corporations would be formed by those who haven't done so already.

Re:The end of our industry

[thaylin]

What is wrong with saying a 2nd grader should know x before moving on to the 3rd grade, and a 3rd grader should know y, before moving to the 4th grade, and so on?

That's not really a good description of common core - it doesn't really do that. States can impose certain testing requirements on top of it, optionally, like Virginia's Standards of Learning (SOL), but you won't find any kind of requirement for "knowing" any objective facts in the Common Core.

So you are stating that is not what it does, and then as evidence state something that is part of the implementation, not the standards themselves, which was exactly the point I was making... The standards dictate what should be learned, not the how they learn and how they evaluate what they learn..

But I wont, ill just ask you, what is wrong with the STANDARDS THEMSELVES? And please do not come up with the usual list of proven incorrect statements, such as teachers not being involved in the standards themselves.

That's a pretty big topic. The Common Core advocates seem to do a lot of marketing around their process for creating the standards, which includes taking a lot of existing standards (really bad ones), and pretending they're worthy of expanding upon.

Which bad ones? Really hard to debate something if you are being vague possibly intentionally

I'll bring up a few of the basic issues and let you research more yourself.

Seventy-two CEOs hailing from corporations that usually like to stay out of the political fray, including Harley-Davidson, General Mills and Xerox, placed a full-page ad in the New York Times claiming that the curriculum will meet the “business community’s expectations.” That should tell you something right there: Are these companies interested in educating Americans to pursue their highest potential, or in creating a workforce beholden to the Corporate ladder?

correlation/causation issue with your statement. It does not really tell me anything on its own, however on the flip side what those companies are interested in has little baring on it, however the purpose of the schools is to prepare you for work/higher ed when you graduate

The fundamental theme of Common Core’s English language arts (ELA) standards is a focus on non-fiction “informational texts.” The ELA standards were fashioned so that elementary students read no more than 50 percent classic literature and high school students may read only 30 percent classic literature. The other 70 percent is comprised of informational texts.

and what is the problem with this? On the face it does not really seem to be a problem. However just like before THIS IS IMPLEMENTATION

The curriculum advocates a “close reading” of a text in which students are asked to analyze what they’ve read strictly from the available text without a whiff of historical context. This method teaches students to accept the information that they are given without question. It's an indoctrination technique writ large, through years of barraging students with lesson plans produced by government bureaucracies.

You mean like how we were required to say the pledge of allegiance every day, without being allowed to opt out, while growing up is indoctrination?

What you claiming is indoctrination is not necessarily so. It is also used to be able to break apart the grammar to pick out subject, verbs, nouns, and the like as it was when we were kids. There is no evidence that I have seen to point to indoctrination, and seeing how this is part of the IMPLIMENTATION, not seeing how it is part of the standard itself.

You can also check out some of the writing by Carol

Re:The end of our industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans prefer that the working class pay the majority of the taxes

Regardless of what party prefers what, has this ever actually happened?

Re:The end of our industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The middle class has always paid the most taxes. They are too poor for any tax shelters and too rich for any tax credits.

Re:The end of our industry

[ganjadude]

You are aware that the top 10 percent pay some 70 pecent of taxes right now correct? Oh, of course not http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/1...

Re:The end of our industry

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN's source is the Heritage Foundation which doesn't line up with federal data showing the top quintile only paying 25.1% of the federal taxes.

Re:The end of our industry

[cyberchondriac]

It looks like you fell for the old Republicans versus Democrats ruse. Like a college football rivalry, you don't pay attention to the details but instead root for the home team while yelling disparaging remarks about the other team. Using this way of thinking, you believe every stereotype given and you are in danger of endorsing or discrediting an legislative initiative based solely is it was sponsored by a republican or a democrat.

Republicans love taxes just as much as democrats. The main difference between the two parties could be boiled down to who pays the taxes and what the government spends the money on.
Republicans prefer that the working class pay the majority of the taxes and government spend its money on national defense and corporate subsidies.This redistributes the money from the working class to the wealthy via government contracts and outright corporate welfare.

This isn't fair. Republicans in general want lower taxes because they want less burden on businesses to stimulate the economy (especially difficult on small businesses), and smaller federal government with less bloat (except on defense, point taken). The constitution calls for a federal government that provides for a common currency and a national defense, but shouldn't be much more than the mortar that supports the bricks which are the separate states. This is what the right wing wants. The left wing wants a monolithic government with ever increasing federal powers, where the states are little more than provinces under central control.
Republicans would prefer lower taxes for the working class too, not just the rich. No one is looking to tax the crap out of the working stiff and give it to the rich, because you can't get blood from a stone; and the more the middle class shrinks, the more this holds true. It's unsustainable.
There is no logic in the notion of wealth redistribution; "wealth" is not a finite zero sum game of some kind where if I have more, you must have less (unless I specifically work for you, and you give yourself huge bonuses from the company coffers while I get boned..but both Rs and Ds happily do that.) If you believe otherwise, you'd believe simply printing more money makes the country richer.
The most ridiculous claims I've heard lately accuse rich people of "hoarding" their money, as though this ties up the money other people need; in fact, that money is in full circulation, since the banks use that money for loans, and stock investments are used by corporations. It's not the 1930s anymore when people literally stashed their cash under their mattress.

They justify this by using the "job creator" story. Unfortunately its been shown that most of the new employers are small businesses whose owners aren't in the wealthy class.

Wait, didn't you just state that republicans prefer to, in essence, give money to the rich via taxing the working class and subsidizing powerful corporations? If this doesn't work because most of these employers are small business owners, then why would they justify it? Sounds like they're trying to help out small business owners, to me.

The wealthy do spend money but trickle down economics doesn't take globalization in consideration and therefore most of the currency is exported in exchange for cheaper goods. The wealthy tend to be more libertarian since they are self sufficient and view regulations as a cost with little benefit.

Agreed that globalization does change the rules of the game, as it's no longer as closed a system as it was. That's going to take decades to level out -- if ever. Still, the basic idea that, if a company is doing well it expands and in doing so means hiring and promoting more workers, is sound. Except that offshoring labor for dirt cheap wages is mucking with that.

Democrats differ slightly on taxation since they want the wealthy to pay their "fair share" of the tax burden and want to lessen the tax burden on the lowest inc

Re:The end of our industry

[Curunir_wolf]

Gee, sure are a lot of problems with the IMPLEMENTATION of these standards. I wonder why, if the standards are so fine, there are so many implementation problems.

Kind of like Communism, then, right? It's a perfect standard, and all of the murders, starvation, suffering and oppression are just implementation issues, right? Or, you know, like "spreading freedom in the Middle East" - the standard is just fine, but the IMPLEMENTATION was bad ...

Semantic arguments are just semantics.

Re:The end of our industry

[ganjadude]

I provided sources, you did not. so excuse me if I take your word on it coward

Re:The end of our industry

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I don't think you really want to believe what the Heritage Foundation is telling you.

Their premise is that the rich pay the majority of the federal tax, so let's really look at the numbers to make sure if their premise is correct.

According to the Federal Income Tax Data from 2011. The top 10% paid 68.3% of all the federal taxes. So far so good...

What makes up the top 10%? The Tax Foundation was nice enough to tabulate this report.

Top 1% includes all households that made over $388,905/year and they paid 35.1% of the federal tax burden.
Top 5% includes all households that made over $167,728/year and they paid 56.5% of the federal tax burden.
Top 10% includes all households that made over $120,136/year and they paid 68.3% of the federal tax burden.

Using the exact same information that the Heritage Foundation used I can factually say:

64.9 % of all federal taxes were paid by households making less than $388,905/year.
43.5% of all federal taxes were paid by households making less than $167,728/year.
31.7% of all federal taxes were paid by households making less than $120,136/year.

My point being that Heritage Foundation used statistics to make a point that is not close to being factual. Their assertion that the rich pay the most taxes is most definitely false. The first clue should have been when they talked about percentage of income without actually showing the income bracket for each percentage.

Go read the actual Tax Stat reports at the IRS's Tax Stats and you will be surprised how small a percentage people who make over $800,000/year pay.

What would this ruling have changed, today?

[damn_registrars]

Novell is practically nothing in comparison to what it once was in terms of company size and market presence. Even if the SCOTUS had overturned the ruling completely and found 100% in Novell's favor, what could that have possibly changed at this time?

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today?

[thaylin]

I am not sure it is fully about the company when it gets to that level, but society in general. They are sanctioning MS's action and it tells these companies they can do those things and just drag out the case long enough that it no longer matters, just because they have more money.

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today?

[Anonymous Coward]

Novell will one day rule the Earth. This is nothing but a tiny setback in their plans.

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Dragging out a case is not new.

I don't think this case was worth the risk of SCOTUS setting an accidental precedence. I'd like to think that SCOTUS was thinking along the same lines.

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today?

[HornWumpus]

Big red is now dead red.

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today?

[Teresita]

Dragging out a case is not new.

I don't think this case was worth the risk of SCOTUS setting an accidental precedence. I'd like to think that SCOTUS was thinking along the same lines.

Putting the SCO in SCOtus since 2004. Just ask Pamela Jones

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today?

[damn_registrars]

drag out the case long enough that it no longer matters, just because they have more money

So then this is basically the same as the Citizens United case, and many others that came before and after it? The law continuing to favor the wealthy is not news.

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today?

[SpaceLifeForm]

Accidental precedence or not accidental, it is clear that this SCOTUS does not really want to uphold any laws that they disagree with.

It is a corrupt group, almost always by a 5-4 margin.

Sherman Antitrust be damned, the fascists rule.

In their mind, world control is all that matters.

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today?

[Gryle]

Care to share which 5 are corrupt and which 4 aren't, and with what evidence you reached that conclusion?

Re:What would this ruling have changed, today?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Justice delayed is justice denied."

The US legal system stinks.

a purchased court

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a SCOTUS full of corporate suckasses.

Re:a purchased court

[MachineShedFred]

Corporation v. Corporation, SCOTUS decides in favor of Corporation.

"OMG the court is packed with corporate interests!!11!!one!!!eleventyone!!1!"

What?

Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[WillAffleckUW]

Same as the Old Oligarchy

We won't get fooled again

Meanwhile Google hasn't paid more than $1 billion in taxes to France, and almost all tech firms have done the same thing, not paying taxes to the US, based on legal fictions and tax havens (a fancy term for a way they can make the middle class pay for their infrastructure and legal protections without paying even 1/3 the tax rate you do).

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[clarkkent09]

Corporate tax is nothing but double taxation on shareholders, employees and indirectly customers of that corporation. US has the highest corporate taxes in the developed world, and corporations have duty to their shareholders to minimize that burden in whatever legal way possible.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate tax is nothing but double taxation on shareholders, employees and indirectly customers of that corporation

Then don't incorporate.

What, you want the government to protect you from your mistakes and pretend the corporation is a separate entity when you screw up, but want it to pretend the corporation is not a separate entity when you want to withdraw your gains?

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[clarkkent09]

No, I want that separate entity not to be taxed, or at least be taxed at a much lower rate than it is now. Even Obama wants to lower the corporate tax rate (39% on average federal+state) but it's difficult when his base is too stupid to realize that that money is ultimately coming out of their pockets.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they're not a bunch of deadbeats who've never produced in their lives. I pay good money to keep human waste alive. Until that changes I don't want to hear anything else.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[Vitriol Angst]

In FDR's day, corporations paid around 35% of the tax burden -- now it's under 7% and dropping.

We can't "afford things any more for some reason" we hear from the media.

We are supposed to be "more competitive" by allowing H1B visas so we can import educated people to work. These same corporations pay less of the bill and we pay more for education -- and then compete with workers who get education from a socialist government.

The discussion that we "can't tax rich people and corporations otherwise they would leave" is moot. What is the benefit of competing to have have a deadbeat over some other country where they won't pay taxes? The rich have made themselves useless to have in the hope that one day they might donate back to the society. Tax them all and if they leave, tax the hell out of imports and all companies unless they are local.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[Vitriol Angst]

"double taxation" -- cry me a river. By this stupid accounting, I'm quintuple taxed and I'm just a poor working stiff if I'm lucky.

US has one of the lowest effective taxes on corporations. And many of the fortune 500 companies pay 5% or less. Now if you are a small startup - taxes might be high, but you're not paying attention to who runs things.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[Vitriol Angst]

Your comments are incredibly wrong.

"his base is too stupid to realize that that money is ultimately coming out of their pockets" -- The only thing I can reply to such a moronic statement is to pretend I'm talking to anyone who did NOT make such a statement. Cost of business comes out of profits. The market decides prices. Over time, if all companies have to pay the same tax -- it's a wash.

If we don't tax a company, there is no revenue to pay for anything -- and I don't get a discount on the happy meal. If we don't tax the company, who do we tax? Consumption, the worker, the land? Sales taxes are the most regressive and expensive to procure -- and of course the darling of people who don't live hand to mouth.

I just want to reiterate how annoying this think tank derived garbage is of "we can't tax businesses otherwise consumers pay". Because we already pay for more things out of pocket than we used to, and our country has less economic power than it used to.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[clarkkent09]

And many of the fortune 500 companies pay 5% or less. Now if you are a small startup - taxes might be high
 
So if the tax rate is lowered and loopholes closed and the tax code simplified as the Republicans have been proposing for a long time, the revenue might be higher and the small startups will pay less?

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[ewieling]

The USA has some of the highest statutory corporate tax rates. However, according to the GAO, their average effective tax rate after all the tax breaks is 12%, which is the lowest since 1972.

The anti-government nutjobs love to tell everyone the USA has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. These people should start telling the whole truth, not just the parts they like.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[ConceptJunkie]

We won't get fooled again

Recent election results point to the contrary, unless I missed how Obama and the Democrats are really sticking it to big business.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Remove the corporate tax rate and increase the income tax on capital gains and the high incomes of individuals in the company to make up the revenue. Get rid of the double-taxing confusion and just set them at the obvious point.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[Uberbah]

Double taxation = taxing money when it passes from rich person to rich person. Doesn't apply to working people earning a living, sales taxes, etc.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[cusco]

Sure, I'll agree that we shouldn't tax your corporation, as long as your corporation agrees not to use the roads, airports, electrical grid, network protocols, postal system, patent and copywrite offices, ports, and all the other things that taxes pay for. Since according to Romney "Corporations are people my friend" the corporation that makes a million dollar profit should pay the same level tax as an individual with a million dollar paycheck.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[Anonymous Coward]

"I pay good money to keep human waste alive." Wow what a great example of conservative/right-wing thinking. The fact that you can judge any other human to be "waste" is disgusting.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[cusco]

loopholes closed and the tax code simplified as the Republicans have been proposing for a long time

Do you seriously believe that? Look at who porks up the budget with exemptions for corporate farms, weapons companies and fossil fuel industries. Each side has its pet industries, the Repugs may be "proposing" to simplify the tax code, but talk is cheap. They're not any better than the Dems on the subject, and considerably less honest about it.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[WillAffleckUW]

The market does not derive price. Price is affected by the jumpers ahead of the queue that shaved milliseconds so they could arbitrage your trade and change your buy price from $10 to $12 and profit their hedge fund.

You must be thinking of the old stock exchanges.

(note: I've been investing since before I bought Apple stock at fire sale prices on Black Monday)

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[orlanz]

Corporate taxation is the most efficient form of taxation we have. On one side you have a ruthlessly efficient system that tries to pay as minimum as it can and on the other we have a system that has cataloged every tax payer & tax rules. There aren't a lot of moving parts. Both sides understand the ever changing & complex tax rules defined by a multi-sided chess game. It is a very good balance. You eventually end up with the corporate world paying for what is required in the social world.

If you tax the end users and consumers, you have a ton of collection costs, lots of moving parts, and even if everyone was good, incorrect collections. Plus the population as individuals have no power to change their taxation rules.

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[Anonymous Coward]

And roll back the other benefits of incorporation such as the ability to hold copyrights, patents and other intellectual property, even own property at all. In fact the only right they don't have is the right to vote, should they have that as well?

Re:Welcome to the New Oligarchy

[jbo5112]

[citation needed]

Corporate income taxes are expected to account for 13% of federal revenue in 2015, and it has been growing under Obama. Aside from a spike (or arch) under Bush around 2005, this is the highest it has been since 1979. When FDR took office, the number was about 12%. http://nationalpriorities.org/...

It's the slashdot reversal...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the reddit, magicians cast spells.
        In slashdot, variables are cast by hackers!

LOL@Novell

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I remember as an IT guy when Novell was the 800 pound gorilla of network operating systems. Then came NT 4.0, then Novell's marketshare slid, then came Novell trying to co-opt Linux to make their produce survive. No dice. SUSE is a good product, but I refuse to have anything to do with Novell after their shenanigans and failure. Then they took SUSE and bought into the whole MS lie of "buying" protection against Linux intellectual property suits against MS or others. Really? Let's not even get started on the notion of "intellectual property"... how about intellectual dishonesty. Thank God for Debian and community software.

Re:LOL@Novell

[MachineShedFred]

Novell fucked up when they tried to make everyone pay out the ass for eDirectory, and Microsoft included a reasonable adoption of LDAPv3 in Windows 2000 Server.

That was the beginning of the end for Novell. Today, the world runs on Active Directory.

Re:LOL@Novell

[unixisc]

Not just that, had Novell defined IPX in a way that would have allowed them to globally define & extend it, they could have been the de facto IANA and laid out the Internet assignments, instead of letting IPv4 mushroom until it became a pain. Also, had they created a Netware subset OS that could have been a desktop OS, they'd have done fine there as well. Instead, by switching to Linux, they just handed things over to Microsoft by putting a UNIX like OS into the equation.

Re:LOL@Novell

[LDAPMAN]

Your IPX comments may have some merit but the idea of a desktop OS based on Netware is ludicrous. Netware was all about pumping packets with very high efficiency and stability. Because of this writing code for Netware was incredibly painful. There was no graphics capability...essentially there was nothing that wasn't about pushing packets, directory services, and networking. You would have been better off trying to write a desktop OS on a Cisco router.

Republicans? WTF?

[walterbyrd]

I am not a republican myself. But, waas this court decision really decided by the republican party?

Re:Republicans? WTF?

[Curunir_wolf]

I am not a republican myself. But, waas this court decision really decided by the republican party?

Can't see how that connection could be made. The presiding chief judge in the 10th circuit decision was a Clinton appointee.

Re: Republicans? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton was a DINO. Nearly everything he did, is doing, or will do is at the direction of the Republicans.

Re: Republicans? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton was a DINO. Nearly everything he did, is doing, or will do is at the direction of the Republican

Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Hippies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google will pay all legally required taxes in France, and the US is one of the few dumbass countries with such a silly corporate taxation system so of course companies will try to get out of paying it. Eliminate corporate taxation (other that local/state taxes and taxes for resource use) and increase capital gains taxes and we would be much better off.

Instead, left wing dickholes like you _love_ the system because you can peddle flim-flam about "big mean corporations not paying taxes".

PS: This is attempt 2 to post this, because Slashdot is a complete piece of shit. Resource has changed, huh? You guys sure are competent, lolzers.

Re:Hippies.

[Vitriol Angst]

And what is wrong with Hippies? They were right. Was Vietnam a good war? Is making love not better than war?

If the taxes just came from capital gains, then you eliminate stocks and companies become privately owned -- or they trade stock in other countries. There's no one solution. Economic activity where money is made is where you tax.

Or we could just stop paying banks to make loans -- and just pay all the people, which I think is the only viable solution for a future where most labor gets replaced by robots.

never heard of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Sherman Antitrust suit? Windows 95? Never heard of them. ok, I'm showing my age. lol thanks for sharing link though.

Re:never heard of this

[BitZtream]

Are you 12 or do you just live under a rock?

Re:never heard of this

[Uberbah]

Damn kids.

Re:never heard of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Cow penises.

Case was a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of retardedness is it to expect one company to help another? There was no "monopoly" as there were provable alternatives. It was all a bunch of nonsense.

Fuck Novell, and fuck little Johnny Trustbusters. A real monopoly involves a physically limited resource that is critical to society. "Windows OS" was and is neither.

You can't conceivably argue I'm wrong, either, considering the current state of the market and Microsoft's much diminished power due to market changes.

And God Damn is Slashdot a piece of shit. What is wrong with the developers, the shit won't post like half the time. Ignores button clicks, whines about resources being changed, etc... Pure inept incompetence.

Re:Case was a joke.

[thaylin]

Who said anything about expecting one company to help another out? What I except is that when I am working with a company they are not going to actively stab me in the back.In this case MS told them what they APIs were, then pulled it out from under them at the last second, to intentionally sink their product. If they would not have not given them the APIs there would not have been an issue, as then MS would not have been working with them and they could have developed something else, however by working with them and then pulling the APIs they intentionally sabotaged the product. By itself that still would not have been an issue, except they intentionally planned that.

As for a monopoly, there certainly was in the desktop, and the current state, after losing the antitrust and having to change practices, is not proof that there was not at the time.

Re:Case was a joke.

[damn_registrars]

You can't conceivably argue I'm wrong, either, considering the current state of the market and Microsoft's much diminished power due to market changes.

Much diminished? The profits at Microsoft suggest otherwise. The lopsided distribution of platforms that code is written for does as well. The share of new PCs sold with windows on it may have diminished from 99% to 95% in the past 20 years; that is not reasonably "much diminished".

And I say this as a Linux user. I would love to say that far fewer PCs today are running Windows than were 20 years ago, but I know that is not true.

Re:Case was a joke.

[ConceptJunkie]

True, but when it comes to markets where Microsoft's monopoly couldn't help so much, phones and tablets, they aren't doing so well. Those markets show what happens when there's a more level playing field and Microsoft's market share is negligible in the mobile market. It might not stay that way, but they are currently way behind Apple, Google and others. That could not have happened in the PC world in the last 20 years.

Re:Case was a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to say that far fewer PCs today are running Windows than were 20 years ago, but I know that is not true.

You just have a narrow definition of what a PC is. These days people don't need a traditional laptop or desktop to do their personal computing, they just as often do it on a tablet or a smartphone - you can see evidence of this in the dwindling numbers of new desktop/laptop sales and the soaring size of the smartphone and tablet markets.

Certainly as both a percentage and an overall number there are far more computers on which people do their personal computing that are not Microsoft than there were 20 years ago. In fact sales of those personal computing form factors of 20 years ago are collapsing only to be replaced by newer ones and of those newer ones Microsoft represents a single-digit percentage.

Re:Case was a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true, I don't know how to post links here but there is an article titled "Windows hits the skids, Mac OS X on the rise" that shows Microsoft market share has dropped below 90% in 2014. There are less PCs running Windows today, and less PCs in general as people have decided Phones in their pocket are good enough.

And we all know Microsoft doesn't rule the Phone markets. It's logical to assume, on the present course, Microsoft's future is grim.

Novell Killed Themselves

[NotSanguine]

A long time ago.

Novell owned the network File/Print market and pioneered the e-Directory (NDS) environment. Microsoft was playing catch-up the whole way.

The biggest problem with Novell was that you couldn't develop applications on the Netware platform. Microsoft offered ISVs the ability to develop software on the platform (Windows) on which it would run. When Novell purchased Unix, I thought that they would fully integrate NCP (Netware Core Protocol) into Unix. This would allow ISVs to develop software on the same platform on which their software would run. Had they done so, Microsoft would have lost the server wars and been relegated to the desktop.

But Novell didn't do the necessary integration, and the rest is history.

As I recall, Word Perfect was better than Microsoft Word in almost every respect. In fact, Word Perfect 5.0 is probably better in many ways than the current incarnation of Word. Sigh.

tl;dr version: Novell killed themselves and Microsoft moved into the vacuum created when Novell imploded. The resolution of this lawsuit just puts the cherry on top of the whole mess.

Re:Novell Killed Themselves

[westlake]

As I recall, Word Perfect was better than Microsoft Word in almost every respect. In fact, Word Perfect 5.0 is probably better in many ways than the current incarnation of Word. Sigh.

Word Perfect was the quintessential DOS-era, character based, word processor, ported to every operating system known to man, each with its own fiefdom within the company.

Its struggles with the transition to a graphical UI did not begin or end with Windows --- and it stumbled badly as the word processor began to evolve into the integrated office suite. Almost Perfect

Re:Novell Killed Themselves

[PPH]

But Novell didn't do the necessary integration, and the rest is history.

The back story on what went on when Novell bought Unix is quite interesting. And was probably what prompted the anti trust suit. Story was that there were a few calls made when Novell proposed this idea. If Novell expected to ever work with a Windows platform again, the Unix plan would have to be dropped. Unix would have to be sold (to a Microsoft front company) and Noorda would have to go.

In the final analysis, the suit was probably dropped because there was no intellectual property for Microsoft to share. SMB services had so many different variants between Windows versions that Microsoft couldn't offer a heterogeneous environment. Their only solution was to insist that customers standardize on one Windows version. At one point it was rumored that the Samba developers had a better handle on SMB variants. And could provide more stable services in a mixed Windows world.

Re:Novell Killed Themselves

[PRMan]

But WordPerfect for Windows crashed non-stop. I was in the IT department at a college at the time and my previous roommate was the head PC lab tech. When the college told us we had to switch to WP for Windows officially, our jaws dropped, because everyone knew it was a buggy piece of crap.

Re:Novell Killed Themselves

[kamapuaa]

Just press ctrl+shift+F7 to print! Word was about 300 times more usable than Wordperfect, even the DOS versions nobody used. It just led in market share, & people didn't want to lose file compatibility.

Re:Novell Killed Themselves

[NotSanguine]

But WordPerfect for Windows crashed non-stop. I was in the IT department at a college at the time and my previous roommate was the head PC lab tech. When the college told us we had to switch to WP for Windows officially, our jaws dropped, because everyone knew it was a buggy piece of crap.

Yes. Yes it was. WP4Win was, in fact, a crashing bug generator rather than a word processor. That was quite annoying, IIRC.

Re:Novell Killed Themselves

[NotSanguine]

Just press ctrl+shift+F7 to print! Word was about 300 times more usable than Wordperfect, even the DOS versions nobody used. It just led in market share, & people didn't want to lose file compatibility.

As someone who relied on a word processor for much of my work back in the early-mid 90's, I remember what a piece of crap MS Word was back then. Word Perfect (with the caveat that WP4win was crap), while it did have its peccadilloes, was far superior to MS Word. Feel free to disagree. However if you do, you will identify yourself as someone too young to remember or as someone who just wasn't paying attention. That is all.

Re:Novell Killed Themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

Had they done so, Microsoft would have lost the server wars and been relegated to the desktop.

Do people run Windows on servers? Did I miss something?

Re:Novell Killed Themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont agree or disagree with your opinion but I will point out that your complete lack of any details, objective points or basis of any kind means you identify yourself as somebody who probably doesnt know what they are talking about and is just parroting whatever opinion he/she heard from somebody else. Feel free to amend your post though if you actually do know what you are talking about.

Re:Novell Killed Themselves

[drinkypoo]

Word For Mac 5.1 was the watershed line. That was the first truly great version of Word. It still wouldn't do all the stuff wordpenis would do (sorry, that's what we called it back when I supported it, because it was such a PITA) but it was by far the most usable word processor with any significant functionality. Wordperfect avoided going WYSIWYG for a long time, with the users awfully smug about it even well after Aldus Pagemaker proved that they were idiots.

re: duping the competition

[King_TJ]

I'd agree with you about that behavior being malicious and "over the top" ... but then there's the question of whether or not it was legal. That's really all the court system is supposed to determine. It might be a fine line, but ultimately, I think the courts did the right thing here.

If you volunteer information to a competitor and then it turns out the info you provided was bogus ... it was still information you VOLUNTEERED. There would be a clear legal case here if Novell signed a deal to PAY for this information from Microsoft, and it turned out they received bad info because of a willful intent to mislead and fail to live up to the terms of the contract.

This whole scenario is really not one you'd expect would play out the same way today, either. These days, interoperability has a net benefit to all parties involved. If Microsoft (for example) makes a concerted effort to ensure Linux or BSD or a Mac running OS X can't connect properly to its shared files and folders, it just makes itself look like a less attractive option. (If I have Macs on my network, or a BSD based FreeNAS or what-not, I'm just as likely to start trying to eliminate my Windows clients or servers from the environment as I am my NAS server or Mac clients, if this issue causes me hassles.)

Regardless, at the time, Novell went from "the only game in town" for a reliable server product to a costly option that was beginning to look like it might not be worth continuing to pay for. Hindsight is 20-20, obviously ... but if I was calling the shots at Novell back then, I would have probably tried to lock in a paid contractual arrangement to obtain access to Microsoft's APIs for networking, since that was very much key to my product's future success.

Re: duping the competition

[cusco]

I don't know what group of idiots was managing Novell at that time, but they screwed that company up just about every way that they could. They owned the PC networking space for years, there was nothing on the market with the capabilities or stability of Netware 3.1x for years and a Novell Netware certification was a ticket to the big paycheck. The move from Netware 3 to Netware 4 was years late, a huge amount of work, a complete paradigm shift, horrendously expensive, extremely risky, and notoriously flaky if it did manage to somehow successfully upgrade. And required IPX/SPX and did not support TCP/IP out of the box. In comparison Windows NT networking was easy, fairly reliable, free, and supported all the major networking protocols of the time, even Banyan Vines. Windows 2000 and Active Directory pretty much put the final nails in Novell's coffin as it delivered everything that Novell had been promising for years, did it easily, and did it much cheaper. Novell had no one to blame but themselves.

Re: duping the competition

[merky1]

Your memory of AD and my memory are completely off. The first release of AD was horrible when compared with NDS.

improvements versus complexity

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, verily!

In my not-so-humble opinion, if ALL OS and software authors implemented a proper response to the warning from Star Treck, I must paraphrase, "I hate Engineers, they are always changing things.", we would all be much better off.

Oh, and YES, I still have a working Apple IIc with Appleworks which does EVERY THING I need in a "word processor", thank you very much; and a working Imagewriter.

Get off my damn lawn you punks!

Re: duping the competition

[cusco]

I used AD before I used NDS, and remember an awful lot of head scratching while thinking "Why the hell did they do it this way?" Having used Windows first I also tend to do the same when trying to work on a Mac or Linux machine, a lot of it is just what one uses first.

NetWare had a lot going for it, it must have taken a lot of work to sabotage that much of a head start. There were several other companies in that same time frame where management insisted on maintaining revenue levels or not adjusting pricing to match a changing market, and have ended up on the dust heap of history. Too bad that Novell was one of them.

Re: duping the competition

[Solandri]

I'd agree with you about that behavior being malicious and "over the top" ... but then there's the question of whether or not it was legal. That's really all the court system is supposed to determine. It might be a fine line, but ultimately, I think the courts did the right thing here.

If you volunteer information to a competitor and then it turns out the info you provided was bogus ... it was still information you VOLUNTEERED. There would be a clear legal case here if Novell signed a deal to PAY for this information from Microsoft, and it turned out they received bad info because of a willful intent to mislead and fail to live up to the terms of the contract.

I'd agree with your legal take on it. However, regardless of legality, there is still the incentive for a company in Microsoft's position (controlling both the OS - Windows - and competing software - Word) to pull this sort of dirty trick to the detriment of the market and the consumer, but for their own self-benefit. It wasn't a part of this trial, but Microsoft had already pulled this type of trick before. It told all the software companies that OS/2 was going to be the GUI successor to DOS. So companies like WordPerfect got busy porting their DOS apps to OS/2. Then at the last minute, Microsoft dumped their partnership with IBM, declared that Windows was now the successor to DOS, and oh by the way here's a nice new word processor we made called Word which runs on Windows, since WordPerfect hasn't got their Windows version ready yet...

The cleaner solution, which allows companies to volunteer info this way but which eliminates the incentive to hurt the consumer (and competitors) for their own self-benefit, is something those of us opposed to Microsoft's tactics back then have always called for. Break Microsoft up into two separate companies - one which makes operating systems, and one which makes applications. If they had been broken up, Office for iOS and Android would have been released years ago instead of just recently. It's pretty obvious Microsoft was holding it back in hopes of using it to steer people towards Win Phone 8 and Win RT, and slowing down abandonment of Windows as their OS for productivity apps.

You see the same problem playing out in ISPs - where the companies which own the wires are also providing content, and deliberately throttling the content of competitors (e.g. Netflix's speeds on Comcast improved immediately after their agreement to pay Comcast, long before any new infrastructure could have been installed). Or how cellular service providers are able to lock down the phone you buy to their network - forcing you to buy your phone from them or from a third party who is getting their phones from them.

The incentive for this anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior disappears if you simply prohibit companies from owning both the platform/pipes and the content that runs on that platform/goes through the pipes. Can you imagine what the automobile market would've been like if Standard Oil and Ford had been one company, and only Ford cars had been allowed to fuel up at Standard Oil gas stations?

Re: duping the competition

[Rob Y.]

Before AD, Microsoft started including the Exchange client with Windows, making it much easier to just use Exchange for email. And that required a Windows server. And once you have your first Windows server, well, it's just easier to go whole hog. All of which would be okay (i.e. legal), i guess, except the bit about bundling with Windows. But Windows' monopoly status hadn't been established yet.

As far as Mac's and Linux systems attaching to Windows shares. It took an antitrust action in the EU to guarantee that one. Otherwise, the Samba guys would still be reverse-engineering deliberately obtuse (and frequently changing) MS protocols.

stfu already there is linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, why didn't novell release a desktop version of netware(or at least invest in the 1990's linux or bsd) if they were so concerned over MS secret api stack(unlikely) that only MS products have access to. All these software companies bitched but no one ever bothered to write their own OS or at least invest in bsd or linux. And today, all these top companies like adobe, autodesk, corel, etc... can make a long term commitment and rewrite their applications for the linux but yet novell keeps bitching.

Re:stfu already there is linux

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, why didn't novell release a desktop version of netware"

they did retard

"or at least invest in the 1990's linux"

ever hear of suse?

here's an idea, instead of ranting on slashdot over stuff you know nothing about and looking like a moron, pull your head out of your mums cunt and get a clue

Re:stfu already there is linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Talking about the 1990's when MS was picking up steam with win95/98. Novell bought suse in 2003 so it was too little to late the market had adopted to MS products;windows, office, server, exchange. By then commercial developers went with the larger user base which was windows and apple which was nothing but marketing hype but it worked.

Re: duping the competition

[cusco]

Actually you could attach Macs to an NT domain, it actually was a lot easier than plugging them into the Netware network IIRC. Of course that was when Apple still did all of their own OS work, rather than slap their GUI on someone else's kernel.

I would have sided with Novel

[Anonymous Coward]

I miss those days.

It would have changed NOTHING

[Anonymous Coward]

They are sanctioning MS's action and it tells these companies they can do those things and just drag out the case long enough that it no longer matters, just because they have more money.

Who are "these companies"? The only one in that boat is Microsoft and it is purely because they have a monopoly in the personal computer market which pretty soon won't make a shit of difference since people are doing the same things on tablets and phones that they do on traditional PCs and it won't even be classifiable as a separate market.

All Microsoft's major competitors use private APIs (Apple does extensively) and apparently that's ok so long as you do not have a monopoly position which, given the personal computing landscape of today, Microsoft no longer has either.

So this ruling would be irrelevant either way, it only affects monopolies and in personal computing (PCs, tablets, smartphones) there no longer are any thanks to the proliferation of Macs, the Ubuntu OS (and of course MINT and others), Chromebooks, Android tablets, iPhones and iPads provides so many choices to end users that you cannot even pretend that you are somehow locked to only Microsoft these days for your personal computing needs.

Re: duping the competition

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Novell refused to release a working Netware client for Mac until after the switch to x86 processors, and even then it didn't work right most of the time.

some things remain unchanged:

[Anonymous Coward]

wordperfect is still better than word and micro$oft still sux

Re: duping the competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Apple intentionally took forever to approve their app until after they had released theirs for iOS