Jump To Comments

Here's what Bloomberg has to say about Novell's closing statement:

A decision to restrict outside programmers' access to extensions, or programming code -- a decision that Novell claims deliberately targeted WordPerfect and made it impossible to run properly on Windows -- was made at a 1993 high-level executive retreat at Hood Canal, Washington, Johnson told jurors. Gates's testimony that the extensions were trivial and unimportant -- hardly worth his time doesn't withstand scrutiny, Johnson said. Johnson revisited testimony and e-mails presented at trial to argue the decision was a purely predatory action. It Was Important' He wasn't telling the truth, Johnson said, referring to Gates's testimony. It was important to him. Novell, which was bought by Seattle-based Attachmate Corp. in April, has argued that WordPerfect's share of the word-processing market fell to less than 10 percent in 1996 from almost 50 percent in 1990.

Hello! I spent about an hour at the courthouse today. Microsoft's David Tulchin was well into closing arguments. And, oddly enough, for the first time I can do a comfortable summation or paraphrase of all that happened and not feel like I'm leaving out anything: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let me be plain. You will see, in the jury instructions and on the form you have to fill out, that the first question is causation. Novell has not shown causation. We have lots of evidence that QuattroPro was late to market. We have no evidence that Bob Frankenberg ever came out and said that QuattroPro was late because of the namespace extensions, therefore Microsoft's actions had no effect on WordPerfect. Furthermore, WordPerfect lost market share after Windows95 came out; therefore, it was a bad product, resulting from bad choices by Novell - and that's ok, sometimes businesses make bad choices. It happens. It's not acceptable, though, to come into a courtroom 15 years later and blame Microsoft for your bad choices." Spread that over 30 slides, and one hour's time. Item of note: Novell's request to reopen their case to put up a rebuttal witness - denied. Closing arguments are due to be complete at 2:00pm today. Then, Judge Motz will read instructions to the jury - he may begin this afternoon, or possibly wait until tomorrow - and then jury deliberations. Timeline on that is absolutely open to guesses.

David B. Tulchin, a lawyer representing Microsoft, told jurors that Novell showed you not one document in which Novell complained to Microsoft about the blocked extensions in 1994 or 1995. A juror might conclude that a company facing $1 billion of damages without the code at issue would speak up, he said.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't see the point of going to court at all unless you are honest, in that the decision ought to reflect true and established facts. What else is the point of the law? You might as well go back to duels and such, if facts don't matter.

Update: The Salt Lake Tribune says the jury deliberated all day, from 8:45 AM until 7:45 PM, and then went home. They resume in the morning. Once again, the judge stood on his head for Microsoft:

But in an unusual move, Motz on Wednesday added an advisory to his instructions, telling the jury that Novells lead trial attorney had shown the jury an incomplete table when he presented his closing argument on Tuesday. Jeffrey Johnson, of a Washington, D.C., law firm, displayed a Novell document on a screen that said the code for the new Quattro Pro version was ready in August 1995, when Windows 95 was launched. But Motz said Johnson neglected to show another part of the document that indicated the new version wouldnt be ready for manufacturing until March of the following year, or months late for trying to capture a high volume of sales from the introduction of the highly successful Windows 95. That information would seem to favor Microsoft, whose trial attorneys blamed Novell for a poor decision in buying WordPerfect and Quattro Pro, and for muddling the updating of the programs for Windows 95. They particularly emphasized that Quattro Pro was nowhere near ready for inclusion in a suite of products, along with WordPerfect, until months after the launch of Windows 95. "Were confident in the jury and are looking forward to what they have to say," said Steven Aeschbacher, associate general counsel for Microsoft.

The NZ Herald has more unusual material about the judge:

Jurors deliberating in a company's US$1 billion (NZ$1.33bn) federal antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft appeared confused, sending at least five questions to the judge, one of which couldn't be answered.... The judge later received notes from the panel seeking clarification on some of the technical testimony throughout the two-month trial. One message so baffled US District Judge J. Frederick Motz that he told jurors to simply disregard their own question in deliberations.

Update 2: Tom Harvey of the Salt Lake Tribune reports that the jury deliberated all day Thursday and still have not reached a verdict:

The jury that sat through a two-month trial of Utah-based Novell Inc.s lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. ended its second day of deliberations Thursday without a verdict. The jury returned to the federal courthouse in downtown Salt Lake City about 8 a.m. Thursday and deliberated for about 11 hours before going home for the day. Jurors are scheduled to return 8 a.m. Friday to continue deliberating the case in which Novell is asking for an award of around $1 billion, attorneys said.

Jurors in the billion-dollar Novell-Microsoft antitrust case are apparently wrestling with a number of questions, including what a "hung jury" means. The seven-woman, seven-man jury was expected to continue deliberations Friday. Jurors have asked the court for several clarifications since receiving the case Wednesday morning. Twice it asked about the term hung jury, possibly signaling that might be on their minds as they weigh two months of complex testimony and hundreds of documents.... U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz gave the jury a verdict form containing seven questions it was to answer in deciding the case. Jurors wanted to know the difference between two similarly worded questions. One asks whether Novell proved that Microsoft's withdrawal of support for the name space extensions "caused harm" to competition in the market for PC operating systems and "contributed significantly" to Microsoft's monopoly in that market. The other asks whether Novell proved that Microsoft's withdrawal of support for the name space extensions was "reasonably capable of contributing significantly" to Microsoft's monopoly in PC operating systems market.

The latest on the docket that we have:

Update: Here's what you can expect, once we get them all uploaded - Update 3: We have all the ones available uploaded now. Enjoy: