View Full Version : Microsoft - 343,000,000

09-17-2007, 03:32 AM
http://money.aol.co.uk/microsoft-loses-343m-appeal/arti...20070916113009990006 (http://money.aol.co.uk/microsoft-loses-343m-appeal/article/20070916113009990006)

09-17-2007, 04:00 AM
how long will it take for the next step in court? ten years.the fine should have been much more imho.

09-17-2007, 04:02 AM
Well i doubt that will have any effect on M$ policy. They will not cut software out nor will there be a detailed documentation how to access core technologies . There is no real benefit in this except we may get rise in M$ product prices to pay the penalty in Europe.

09-17-2007, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Well i doubt that will have any effect on M$ policy. They will not cut software out nor will there be a detailed documentation how to access core technologies . There is no real benefit in this except we may get rise in M$ product prices to pay the penalty in Europe.

It probably won`t do anything much to them. Bill gates probably didn`t even twitch.

But anything that says to Bill, "Oi! Watch it! You do NOT rule the world yet!" has got to be good.

09-17-2007, 05:09 AM

09-17-2007, 12:00 PM
I will be pleased as long as any fine that is eventually paid is not allowed to be paid in Microsoft donating software or setting up hardware is schools or some other weasley escape. Make MS cut a cheque. It still wonk hurt but it will be closer to a penalty.

Having MS donate software/equipment just perpetuates a junkie cycle and in the end turns into a benefit for MS by making more people, even more familiar\dependent on their garbage.

09-17-2007, 12:37 PM
nothing new there then

Microsoft admitted in its 2006 Annual Report that it was a defendant in at least 35 patent infringement lawsuits. [9] The company's litigation expenses for April 2004 through March 2007 exceed $4.3 billion: over $4 billion in payouts, plus $300 million in legal fees

Suits by private companies
Microsoft has also fought numerous legal battles against private companies. The most prominent ones are against:

Alcatel-Lucent, which won US$1.52 billion in a lawsuit which alleged that Microsoft had infringed its patents on playback of audio files. This ruling was overturned in a higher court[68]
Apple Inc. (known as Apple Computer, Inc. at the time), which accused Microsoft in the late 1980s of copying the "look and feel" of the graphical user interface of Apple's operating systems. The courts ruled in favor of Microsoft in 1994. Another suit by Apple accused Microsoft, along with Intel and the San Francisco Canyon Company, in 1995 of knowingly stealing several thousand lines of QuickTime source code in an effort to improve the performance of Video for Windows. [69] [70] [71] [72] After a threat to withdraw support for Office for Mac, [73] [74] this lawsuit was ultimately settled in 1997. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer the default browser over Netscape, and Microsoft agreed to continue developing Office and other software for the Mac for the next 5 years, purchase $150 million of non-voting Apple stock, and made a quiet payoff estimated to be in the US$500 million-$2 billion range. [75] [76][77][78]
AOL, on behalf of its Netscape division. Netscape (as an independent company) also was involved in the United States v. Microsoft antitrust suit.
Be Inc., which accused Microsoft of exclusionary and anticompetitive behavior intended to drive Be out of the market. Be even offered to license its BeOS operating system for free to any PC vendors who would ship it pre-installed, but the vendors declined due to what Be believes were fears of pricing retaliation from Microsoft: by raising the price of Microsoft Windows for one particular PC vendor, Microsoft could price that vendor's PCs out of the market.[79]
Burst.com, which claims that Microsoft stole Burst's patented technology for delivering high speed streaming sound and video content on the internet. Also at issue in the case is a 35-week period of missing emails in the evidence Microsoft handed over to Burst which was discovered by Burst.com's lawyers. Burst accuses Microsoft of crafting a 30 day email deletion policy specifically to cover up illegal activity. Microsoft settled with the company for $60 million in exchange for an agreement to license some of the company's technologies.[80][81][82]
Eolas and University of California, which accused Microsoft of using some of its software patents in their web browser, won $521 million in court.[83]
Caldera, which accused Microsoft of having modified Windows 3.1 so that it would not run on DR DOS 6 although there was no technical reason for it not to work.[84] Some claim that Microsoft put encrypted code in five otherwise unrelated Microsoft programs in order to prevent the functioning of DR DOS in pre-releases (beta versions) of Windows 3.1.[85] Microsoft settled out-of-court for an undisclosed sum.
Opera, which accused Microsoft of intentionally making its MSN service incompatible with the Opera browser on several occasions.
Sendo, which accused Microsoft of terminating their partnership so it could steal Sendo's technology to use in Windows Smartphone 2002.[86]
Spyglass, which licensed its browser to Microsoft in return for a percentage of each sale; Microsoft turned the browser into Internet Explorer and bundled it with Windows, giving it away to gain market share but effectively destroying any chance of Spyglass making money from the deal they had signed with Microsoft; Spyglass sued for deception and won a $8 million settlement.[87]
Stac Electronics, which accused Microsoft of stealing its data compression code and using it in MS-DOS 6.[88]
Sun Microsystems, which held Microsoft in violation of contract for including a modified version of Java in Microsoft Windows that allowed applications written with Microsoft proprietary extensions to the Java language to run; Microsoft lost this decision in court. Microsoft was forced to stop shipping their Java Virtual Machine at all, and since then users have had to download one from the Internet on all new Windows installations.
Many other smaller companies have filed patent abuse and predatory practice suits against Microsoft