Boy, what a blast from the past! Remember Novell Inc., the famed software company? Well the story goes that the firm sued Microsoft one balmy morning in 2004, claiming that Redmond infringed on competition rules during the 90s.
The lawsuit was put in motion claiming that Redmond deliberately delayed the launch of Windows 95 with the intention of slowing down sales of WordPerfect productivity suite, and thereby bring more users to Office lineup of applications.
Novell also accused Microsoft of trying to maintain its monopoly in the operating system market by using a number of unfair strategies.
Well, just now the 10th US Central Court of Appeals based in Denver has finally announced a verdict in the Novell versus Microsoft lawsuit in favor of Microsoft, claiming that the technology titan cannot be accused of infringing competition rules.
Now finally may be an overused word in most cases, but here we are talking about the jolly old 90s.
Jim Lundberg, Novell’s vice president for legal matters, said in a statement:
“Ultimately this decision will have no effect on our day-to-day operations nor our company’s vision for current and future Novell customers.”
Microsoft’s corporate vice president and associate general counsel, David Howard, on the other hand, was appropriately pleased, saying the company had done nothing wrong with Windows 95:
“As we’ve maintained since it was filed over eight years ago, this case was meritless and should never have been brought. We’re pleased that the Court of Appeals has put it to rest once and for all.”
Redmond denied the accusations at that time, pointing to the fact that the delay in launch of Windows 95 was because of internal discussions on what features to implement in the operating system. In fact, Bill Gates twice testified in this case, but the judges failed to reach a unanimous verdict in 2011.
Novel appealed the decision back then saying that the decision to delay Windows 95 caused the company losses that amounted to $1.2 billion.
The company still maintains that it is considering its options after this verdict, meaning more legal actions cannot be discounted in the future.