Novell’s $1.3 billion antitrust suit against Microsoft ends in hung jury
Just in time to get home for the holidays, after three days of deliberation, a 12-member jury told a judge last Friday that they were unable to reach a decision in Novells antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.
December 19, 2011 at 06:45 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Just in time to get home for the holidays, after three days of deliberation, a 12-member jury told a judge last Friday that they were unable to reach a decision in Novell's antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.
The $1.3 billion suit, Novell Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, was filed in November 2004 in the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City. The lawsuit claimed that Microsoft took advantage of its stranglehold on the PC operating system (OS) market to injure Novell's desktop applications business.
Specifically, Novell accused Microsoft of misleading it about specific technical details prior to the release of Windows 95, which adversely affected Novell's WordPerfect, Quattro Pro and other applications. Novell alleged Microsoft invited the company to work on versions of its applications for the new OS, but when doing so, found that Microsoft had removed crucial application programming interfaces required for its applications to function properly. Novell also claimed Microsoft was slow to fix bugs that caused problems for its software among other complaints.
After a two-month trial, the jury was unable to reach an accord. According to court documents, the jury asked for clarification on a number of points during its deliberation, including questions about the definition of “middleware.” The jury was unsure whether Windows 95 was considered “an operating system or middleware,” according to the court filings.
While Novell is disappointed with the setback, it said in a statement that it will seek a retrial and make an effort to address all of the jurors' uncertainties.
For more, read PC World.
Just in time to get home for the holidays, after three days of deliberation, a 12-member jury told a judge last Friday that they were unable to reach a decision in Novell's antitrust lawsuit against
The $1.3 billion suit, Novell Inc. v.
Specifically, Novell accused
After a two-month trial, the jury was unable to reach an accord. According to court documents, the jury asked for clarification on a number of points during its deliberation, including questions about the definition of “middleware.” The jury was unsure whether Windows 95 was considered “an operating system or middleware,” according to the court filings.
While Novell is disappointed with the setback, it said in a statement that it will seek a retrial and make an effort to address all of the jurors' uncertainties.
For more, read PC World.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250