Quote from retired1af:
Ahhhh, that old wive's tale again? I submit that MS didn't purposely code Windows to "break" WordPerfect,
Quote from the United States Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit [Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.505 F.3d 302, 309 (C.A.4 (Md.),2007]:
Notwithstanding the fact that the primary threats at issue in the government action stood outside of the PC operating-system market, Microsoft was found to have unlawfully monopolized that market. Microsoft II, 253 F.3d at Id. at 64, 71, 74, 76, 77.
Here, Novell alleges that Microsoft specifically targeted its products for destruction as a means to damage competition in the operating-systems market. Novell's allegations go beyond mere speculation. They are supported by internal Microsoft communications. For example, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates specifically suggested waiting to publish critical technical specifications of Windows 95 until “we have a way to do a high level of integration [between Microsoft Office and Windows 95] that will be harder for [the] likes of ... WordPerfect to achieve.” J.A. 95. Otherwise, Gates noted, '[w]e can't compete with ... WordPerfect/Novell.' Id."
Novell v Microsoft, surpa, p 316.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Microsoft won the suit, not because its illegal injuries to Word Perfect were "old wive's tales" but rather because Novell's lawyers, for some inexplicable reason, waited some eight years to bring suit, i.e Novell's suit was barred by the statute of limitations. See page 322.