DOCSLIB.ORG

Ray Quiney & Nebeker

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ray Quiney & Nebeker UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE MICROSOFT CORP. ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL Docket No. 1332 Hon. J. Frederick Motz This Document Relates to: Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, Oral Argument Requested Civil Action No. JFM-05-1087 MICROSOFT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO NOVELL'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON MICROSOFT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND IN SUPPORT OF MICROSOFT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Richard J. Wallis G. Stewar Webb, Jr. Steven J. Aeschbacher (Fed. Bar. No. 00828) MICROSOFT CORPORATION VENABLELLP One Microsoft Way 750 East Pratt Street Redmond, Washington 98052 Suite 900 Phone: (425) 706-8080 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Facsimile: (425) 936-7329 Phone: (410) 244-7565 rwallis(frnicrosoft.com Facsimile: (410) 244-7742 steveaes(fmicrosoft.com gswebb(fvenable.com Mark M. Bettilyon David B. Tulchin RAY QUINEY & NEBEKER Steven L. Holley 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 SULLIV AN & CROMWELL LLP P.O. Box 45385 125 Broad Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84145 New York, New York 10004 Phone: (801) 532-1500 Phone: (212) 558-4000 Facsimile: (801) 532-7543 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 mbettilyon(frqn.com tulchind(fsullcrom.com holleys(fsullcrom.com Attorneys for Microsoft Corporation November 13, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ..............................................................3 A. Novell's Sale of Antitrust Claims to Caldera ..........................................................3 B. Caldera's Lawsuit Against Microsoft ....................................................................11 1. The Claims Asserted by Caldera............................................................. ..11 2. Novell's Paricipation in the Caldera Litigation .......................................14 3. The Settlement of the Caldera Litigation.. ........... ..... ............................ ....16 C. Novell's Claims in this Action ..............................................................................17 D. Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss Counts I and VI on the Ground that Novell Sold Them to Caldera...... ........ .... ....... ....... ......... .... ......... ....... ............................. ..19 E. Novell's 2008 Motion for Summary Judgment and Microsoft's Motion to Compel ..................................................................................................................20 F. Novell's Present Motion ........................................................................................21 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................22 i. The Standard for Granting Summar Judgment ........ ..... ................. .................... ..22 II. Novell Sold Its Present Claims to Caldera and Is Not a Real Party in Interest................................................. ......... ..................................................... ... .23 A. The Asset Purchase Agreement Unambiguously Assigned Novell's Present Claims to Caldera ....................................................................... ..23 B. Alternatively, Extrinsic Evidence Shows that the Asset Purchase Agreement Assigned Novell's Present Claims to Caldera ........................28 C. This Cour Is Not Bared from Considering Microsoft's Interpretation of the Asset Purchase Agreement .......................................36 III. Alternatively, Novell's Present Claims Are Bared by Res Judicata ....................37 A. Novell and Caldera Were in Privity with Respect to the Caldera Litigation ...................................................................................................39 1. The Substantive Legal Relationship Between Novell and Caldera Establishes Privity ...............................................................39 2. Novell Was Adequately Represented in the Caldera Litigation ........!.................................................................................40 3. Judicial Estoppel Does Not Bar Microsoft from Establishing Novell's Role in the Caldera Litigation ...........................................41 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page B. Novell's Present Claims Arise out of the Same Cause of Action Asserted in the Caldera Litigation ............................................................43 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................49 - 11 - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Anyanwutaku v. Fleet Mortgage Group, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 566 (D. Md. 2000) ....................................................................................44,48 Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392 (2000) ................................................................................................................38 Brinkley v. Harbour Recreation Club, 180 F.3d 598 (4th Cir. 1999) ..................................................................................................22 Café Rio, Inc. v. Larkin-Giford-Overton, LLC, 207 P.3d 1235 (Utah 2009) ...............................................................................................24,28 Caldera, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 181 F.R.D. 506 (D. Utah 1998) ..............................................................................................15 Caldera, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 72 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (D. Utah 1999) .........................................................................................3 Crystal Import Corp. v. A VID Identifcation Sys., Inc., 582 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Minn. 2008) ...................................................................................48 Harnett v. Bilman, 800 F.2d 1308 (4th Cir. 1986) ................................................................................................44 Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 2009 WL 1683990 (S.D.N.Y. June 15,2009) ........................................................................40 In re Maco Homes, Inc., 180 F .3d 163 (4th Cir. 1999) ........................... ......................... ............................................. .23 In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig., 237 F. Supp. 2d 639 (D. Md. 2002) ..........................................................................................5 Indian Coffee Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 752 F.2d 891 (3d Cir. 1985) .............................................................................................. 37-38 Intl Tel. & TeL. Corp. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 369 F. Supp. 316 (M.D.N.C. 1973) ........................................................................................44 Joplin Enters. v. Allen, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20762 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 1992) ..................................................37 Keith v. Aldridge, 900 F.2d 736 (4th Cir. 1990) ..................................................................................................38 - iii - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ( Continued) Page(s) KKSN, Inc. v. Rogers, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7059 (D. Or. May 26, 1993) .............................................................37 Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. George V Hamilton, Inc., 571 F.3d 299 (3d Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................................40 New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) ................................................................................................................42 Novell, Inc. v. Canopy Group, Inc., 92 P.3d 768 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) ........................................................................10, 16,39,40 Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2005 WL 1398643 (D. Md. June 10,2005) ................................................................17, 19,20 Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 505 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2007) ..........................................................................................passim Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................38, 43 OSRecovery, Inc. v. One Groupe Intl, Inc., 380 F. Supp. 2d 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) .........................................................................22, 28, 37 Pelt v. Utah, 539 F.3d 1271 (lOth Cir. 2008) ..............................................................................................39 Pittston Co. v. United States, 199 F.3d 694 (4th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................................43, 48 Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345 (4th Cir. 2004) ..........................................................................................passim Sears v. Riemersma, 655 P.2d 1105 (Utah 1982) .....................................................................................................36 Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuilan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993) ................................................................................................................45 Taylor v. Sturgell, 128 S. Ct. 2161 (2008) ......................................................................................................39,40 United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................47 - iV- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) Page(s) United States v. Mooney, 497 F.3d 397 (4th Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................22 Waldman v. Vilage of Kiryas Joel, 207
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Android (Operating System) 1 Android (Operating System)
    Android (operating system) 1 Android (operating system) Android Home screen displayed by Samsung Nexus S with Google running Android 2.3 "Gingerbread" Company / developer Google Inc., Open Handset Alliance [1] Programmed in C (core), C++ (some third-party libraries), Java (UI) Working state Current [2] Source model Free and open source software (3.0 is currently in closed development) Initial release 21 October 2008 Latest stable release Tablets: [3] 3.0.1 (Honeycomb) Phones: [3] 2.3.3 (Gingerbread) / 24 February 2011 [4] Supported platforms ARM, MIPS, Power, x86 Kernel type Monolithic, modified Linux kernel Default user interface Graphical [5] License Apache 2.0, Linux kernel patches are under GPL v2 Official website [www.android.com www.android.com] Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware and key applications.[6] [7] Google Inc. purchased the initial developer of the software, Android Inc., in 2005.[8] Android's mobile operating system is based on a modified version of the Linux kernel. Google and other members of the Open Handset Alliance collaborated on Android's development and release.[9] [10] The Android Open Source Project (AOSP) is tasked with the maintenance and further development of Android.[11] The Android operating system is the world's best-selling Smartphone platform.[12] [13] Android has a large community of developers writing applications ("apps") that extend the functionality of the devices. There are currently over 150,000 apps available for Android.[14] [15] Android Market is the online app store run by Google, though apps can also be downloaded from third-party sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Ebook - Informations About Operating Systems Version: August 15, 2006 | Download
    eBook - Informations about Operating Systems Version: August 15, 2006 | Download: www.operating-system.org AIX Internet: AIX AmigaOS Internet: AmigaOS AtheOS Internet: AtheOS BeIA Internet: BeIA BeOS Internet: BeOS BSDi Internet: BSDi CP/M Internet: CP/M Darwin Internet: Darwin EPOC Internet: EPOC FreeBSD Internet: FreeBSD HP-UX Internet: HP-UX Hurd Internet: Hurd Inferno Internet: Inferno IRIX Internet: IRIX JavaOS Internet: JavaOS LFS Internet: LFS Linspire Internet: Linspire Linux Internet: Linux MacOS Internet: MacOS Minix Internet: Minix MorphOS Internet: MorphOS MS-DOS Internet: MS-DOS MVS Internet: MVS NetBSD Internet: NetBSD NetWare Internet: NetWare Newdeal Internet: Newdeal NEXTSTEP Internet: NEXTSTEP OpenBSD Internet: OpenBSD OS/2 Internet: OS/2 Further operating systems Internet: Further operating systems PalmOS Internet: PalmOS Plan9 Internet: Plan9 QNX Internet: QNX RiscOS Internet: RiscOS Solaris Internet: Solaris SuSE Linux Internet: SuSE Linux Unicos Internet: Unicos Unix Internet: Unix Unixware Internet: Unixware Windows 2000 Internet: Windows 2000 Windows 3.11 Internet: Windows 3.11 Windows 95 Internet: Windows 95 Windows 98 Internet: Windows 98 Windows CE Internet: Windows CE Windows Family Internet: Windows Family Windows ME Internet: Windows ME Seite 1 von 138 eBook - Informations about Operating Systems Version: August 15, 2006 | Download: www.operating-system.org Windows NT 3.1 Internet: Windows NT 3.1 Windows NT 4.0 Internet: Windows NT 4.0 Windows Server 2003 Internet: Windows Server 2003 Windows Vista Internet: Windows Vista Windows XP Internet: Windows XP Apple - Company Internet: Apple - Company AT&T - Company Internet: AT&T - Company Be Inc. - Company Internet: Be Inc. - Company BSD Family Internet: BSD Family Cray Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Caldera Systems to Acquire Sco Server Software
    CALDERA SYSTEMS TO ACQUIRE SCO SERVER SOFTWARE AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICESDIVISIONS, PROVIDING WORLD'S LARGEST LINUX /UNIX CHANNEL Submitted by: Archetype (Text100) Wednesday, 2 August 2000 Offers First Open Internet Platform, Embracing Open Access to Linux and UNIX Technologies OREM, UT - August 2, 2000 - Caldera Systems, Inc., (Nasdaq: CALD), a "Linux for Business" leader and The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., (SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOC), the world's leading provider of UNIX operating systems, today announced that Caldera Systems has entered into an agreement to acquire the SCO Server Software Division and the Professional Services Division. The Professional Services Division will operate as a separate business unit of Caldera, to provide services to meet the Internet and eBusiness infrastructure needs of customers. The new company will offer the industry's first comprehensive Open Internet Platform (OIP) combining Linux and UNIX server solutions and services globally. The OIP provides commercial customers and developers with a single platform that can scale from the thinnest of clients to the clustering needs of the largest data center. The Open Internet Platform combines the robust scalability of the UNIX system with the low-cost, developer-accepted Linux operating system. The products, solutions, and services developed for the Open Internet Platform will be available through more than 15,000 partners worldwide. Details of the Agreement Caldera Systems, Inc. will form a new holding company, Caldera, Inc., to acquire assets from the SCO Server Software Division plus the SCO Professional Services Division, including a highly skilled workforce, products and channel resources. Caldera, Inc. will have exclusive distribution rights for the SCO OpenServer product line, and is fully committed to servicing and supporting the SCO OpenServer customer base.
    [Show full text]
  • Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix : from AT&T-Owned to Freely
    Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix : From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable Marshall Kirk McKusick Early History Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie presented the first Unix paper at the Symposium on Operating Systems Principles at Purdue University in November 1973. Professor Bob Fabry, of the University of California at Berkeley, was in attendance and immediately became interested in obtaining a copy of the system to experiment with at Berkeley. At the time, Berkeley had only large mainframe computer systems doing batch processing, so the first order of business was to get a PDP-11/45 suitable for running with the then-current Version 4 of Unix. The Computer Science Department at Berkeley, together with the Mathematics Department and the Statistics Department, were able to jointly purchase a PDP-11/45. In January 1974, a Version 4 tape was delivered and Unix was installed by graduate student Keith Standiford. Although Ken Thompson at Purdue was not involved in the installation at Berkeley as he had been for most systems up to that time, his expertise was soon needed to determine the cause of several strange system crashes. Because Berkeley had only a 300-baud acoustic-coupled modem without auto answer capability, Thompson would call Standiford in the machine room and have him insert the phone into the modem; in this way Thompson was able to remotely debug crash dumps from New Jersey. Many of the crashes were caused by the disk controller's inability to reliably do overlapped seeks, contrary to the documentation. Berkeley's 11/45 was among the first systems that Thompson had encountered that had two disks on the same controller! Thompson's remote debugging was the first example of the cooperation that sprang up between Berkeley and Bell Labs.
    [Show full text]
  • Titans and Trolls of the Open Source Arena
    Titans and Trolls Enter the Open-Source Arena * by DEBRA BRUBAKER BURNS I. Introduction .................................................................................... 34 II. Legal Theories for Open Source Software License Enforcement ................................................................................... 38 A. OSS Licensing .......................................................................... 38 B. Legal Theories and Remedies for OSS Claims .................... 40 1. Legal Protections for OSS under Copyright and Contract Law ..................................................................... 40 Stronger Protections for OSS License under Copyright Law ................................................................... 40 2. Copyright-Ownership Challenges in OSS ....................... 42 3. Potential Legal Minefields for OSS under Patent Law ...................................................................................... 45 4. Added Legal Protection for OSS under Trademark Law ...................................................................................... 46 5. ITC 337 Action as Uncommon Legal Protection for OSS ..................................................................................... 49 III. Enforcement Within the OSS Community .................................. 49 A. Software Freedom Law Center Enforces OSS Licenses .... 50 B. Federal Circuit Finds OSS License Enforceable Under Copyright Law ......................................................................... 53 C. Commercial OSS
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source Legal Risk Management in the Enterprise, Version 1.2 - 2 of 7
    Open Source Legal Risk Management in the Enterprise, Version 1.2 OPTAROS WHITE PAPER Realize the Benefits of Open Source Open Source Legal Risk Management in the Enterprise, Version 1.2 - 2 of 7 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 SCO Group vs. IBM............................................................................................................................ 2 License Management and Compliance .................................................................................................. 3 Patents and Property ......................................................................................................................... 4 Indemnification and Insurance ............................................................................................................ 5 Summary......................................................................................................................................... 6 About the Author Stephen Walli........................................................................................................... 7 About Optaros .................................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction There is sometimes confusion about how legally risky using free and open source software (FOSS) can be in the enterprise. These concerns center around: ♦ the SCO Group vs. IBM lawsuit, ♦
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the FOURTH CIRCUIT
    Case: 10-1482 Document: 35 Date Filed: 09/17/2010 Page: 1 No. 10-1482 IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT dNOVELL, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, —v.— MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BRIEF OF APPELLEE MICROSOFT CORPORATION RICHARD J. WALLIS DAVID B.TULCHIN STEVEN J. AESCHBACHER Counsel of Record MICROSOFT CORPORATION STEVEN L. HOLLEY One Microsoft Way SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP Redmond, Washington 98052 125 Broad Street (425) 882-8080 New York, New York 10004 (212) 558-4000 G. S TEWART WEBB VENABLE LLP 750 East Pratt Street, Suite 900 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 244-7400 Attorneys for Microsoft Corporation September 17, 2010 Case: 10-1482 Document: 35 Date Filed: 09/17/2010 Page: 2 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER INTERESTS Only one form needs to be completed for a party even if the party is represented by more than one attorney. Disclosures must be filed on behalf of all parties to a civil, agency, bankruptcy or mandamus case. Corporate defendants in a criminal or post-conviction case and corporate amici curiae are required to file disclosure statements. Counsel has a continuing duty to update this information. No. _______ Caption: __________________________________________________ Pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and Local Rule 26.1, ______________________ who is _______________________, makes the following disclosure: (name of party/amicus) (appellant/appellee/amicus) 1. Is party/amicus a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity? YES NO 2. Does party/amicus have any parent corporations? YES NO If yes, identify all parent corporations, including grandparent and great-grandparent corporations: 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering Law and Ethics
    ENSC 406 Software, Computer and Internet Ethics Bob Gill, P.Eng., FEC, smIEEE May 15th 2017 1 Topics Covered What is Open Source Software? A One-Slide History of Open Source Software The Open Source Development Model Why Companies Use (and Don’t Use) Open Source Software Open Source Licensing Strategies Open Source Licenses and “Copyleft” Open Source Issues in Corporate Transactions Relevant Cases and Disputes Open source vs. Freeware vs. Shareware Site Licensing Software Maintenance Computer and Internet Ethics 2 What is Open Source Software? Open Source software is software licensed under an agreement that conforms to the Open Source Definition Access to Source Code Freedom to Redistribute Freedom to Modify Non-Discriminatory Licensing (licensee/product) Integrity of Authorship Redistribution in accordance with the Open Source License Agreement 3 What is Open Source Software? Any developer/licensor can draft an agreement that conforms to the OSD, though most licensors use existing agreements GNU Public License (“GPL”) Lesser/Library GNU Public License (“LGPL”) Mozilla Public License Berkeley Software Distribution license (“BSD”) Apache Software License MIT – X11 License See complete list at www.opensource.org/licenses 4 Examples of Open Source Software Linux (operating system kernel – substitutes for proprietary UNIX) Apache Web Server (web server for UNIX systems) MySQL(Structured Query Language – competes with Oracle) Cloudscape, Eclipse (IBM contributions) OpenOffice(Microsoft Office Alternate) SciLab,
    [Show full text]
  • Wikipedia: Design of the FAT File System
    Design of the FAT file system A FAT file system is a specific type of computer file system architecture and FAT a family of industry-standard file systems utilizing it. Developer(s) Microsoft, SCP, IBM, [3] The FAT file system is a legacy file system which is simple and robust. It Compaq, Digital offers good performance even in very light-weight implementations, but Research, Novell, cannot deliver the same performance, reliability and scalability as some Caldera modern file systems. It is, however, supported for compatibility reasons by Full name File Allocation Table: nearly all currently developed operating systems for personal computers and FAT12 (12- many home computers, mobile devices and embedded systems, and thus is a bit version), well suited format for data exchange between computers and devices of almost FAT16 (16- any type and age from 1981 through the present. bit versions), Originally designed in 1977 for use on floppy disks, FAT was soon adapted and FAT32 (32-bit version used almost universally on hard disks throughout the DOS and Windows 9x with 28 bits used), eras for two decades. Today, FAT file systems are still commonly found on exFAT (64- floppy disks, USB sticks, flash and other solid-state memory cards and bit versions) modules, and many portable and embedded devices. DCF implements FAT as Introduced 1977 (Standalone the standard file system for digital cameras since 1998.[4] FAT is also utilized Disk BASIC-80) for the EFI system partition (partition type 0xEF) in the boot stage of EFI- FAT12: August 1980 compliant computers. (SCP QDOS) FAT16: August 1984 For floppy disks, FAT has been standardized as ECMA-107[5] and (IBM PC DOS 3.0) ISO/IEC 9293:1994[6] (superseding ISO 9293:1987[7]).
    [Show full text]
  • DR DOS for the Zfx86
    DR DOS for the ZFx86 Cost Effective, Reliable, Rapid Deployment of Embedded Systems w DR DOS on the ZFx86 gets products to market quickly at the lowest development and ownership cost. w Thousands of compatible applications, drivers and utilities available free or at minimal cost. w Full documentation available. DR DOS 7.03 Key Features of DR DOS Online Manual - DRDOS is supplied with a complete The ideal embedded DOS system, online manual that contains detailed information about all designed for out-of-the-box of the features of the operating system including the basic implementation into ROM or Flash commands, and the advanced utilities. It also has online ROM with tools and associated help available for all its commands. documents available in the DRDOS Memory Management - Memory management features OEM Documentation Kit. include a set of device drivers and commands that enable w 100% MS-DOS 6.22 compatible.. you to manage memory efficiently and make as much memory as possible available to your applications. w Comprehensive DOS utility set DOS Protected Mode Services - DOS Protected Mode w Multitasking, with API for developers Services (DPMS) interface allows specially-implemented w DPMS memory manager in addition to DPMI device drivers and TSRs to operate in extended memory. w Stacker disk compression This makes more memory within the first megabyte w NWCACHE - disk caching program available to applications and other conventionally-written drivers and TSRs. Both Stacker* (the disk compression w EMM386 memory manager program), and NWCACHE (the disk cache) use DPMS. w DOS Protected Mode Services (DPMS) Disk Compression - The disk compression component w Multitasking enables you to store more information by compressing the w DR-DOS provides a full multitasking environment data.
    [Show full text]
  • Motivations of Participating in Open Source Projects
    Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001 Working for Free? – Motivations of Participating in Open Source Projects Alexander Hars Shaosong Ou IOM Department IOM Department Marshall School of Business Marshall School of Business University of Southern California University of Southern California [email protected] [email protected] Abstract the public, including the right to use, to redistribute and to The success of the Linux operating system has modify the software free of charge. This is a direct demonstrated the viability of an alternative form of challenge to the established assumptions about software software development – open source software – that markets that threatens the position of commercial challenges traditional assumptions about software software vendors. markets. Understanding what drives open source The open source phenomenon raises many interesting developers to participate in open source projects is questions. Its proponents regard it as a paradigmatic crucial for assessing the impact of open source software. change where the economics of private goods built on the This article identifies two broad types of motivations that scarcity of resources are replaced by the economics of account for their participation in open source projects. public goods where scarcity is not an issue. Critics argue The first category includes internal factors such as that open source software will always be relegated to intrinsic motivation and altruism, and the second niche areas, that it cannot compete with their commercial category focuses on external rewards such as expected opponents in terms of product stability and reliability future returns and personal needs. This article also [15], and that open source projects lack the capability to reports the results of a survey administered to open innovate.
    [Show full text]
  • DR-Webspyder R Graphicaldos Web Browser
    DR-WebSpyder R GraphicalDOS Web Browser A fcully ustomizable, > Information Kiosks DRlsow ystem r equirement > Network Computers for > Internet-Set-top Boxes Internet Browser > Compact embedded devices with display everage the proven DR-WebSpyder equips Many OEMs base their power and reliability of embedded OEMs of compact, embedded solutions on LDR-DOSR with a new x86-based devices with a industry standard PC graphical interface and set graphical Web browser. hardware to reduce the risk of Web protocols. Bring Running on DR-DOS (or any and cost associated with Internet access to your other current version of development. This same devices quickly and easily DOS), this fully configurable, logic applies to the software with DR-WebSpyderR . Low HTML 3.2 browser aids that is used. Embedded risk and low system developers in customizing OEMs that choose requirements are the key the navigation bar, fonts, DR-WebSpyder as the benefits to OEMs and system setup pages, E-mail, system browser and DR-DOS as the integrators. defaults, and more. operating system expand their available resources with Caldera DR-WebSpyder is a DR-WebSpyder also allows an extremely large pool of customizable, high- developers to pre-configure experienced developers and performance Web browser the browser to connect with proven development tools for your interactive specific service providers, for DOS. information kiosk, network making it easy for the end computer, Internet set-top user to simply plug in and The combination of DR-DOS box, and hand-held device. browse. and DR-WebSpyder creates the thinnest graphical DR-WebSpyder with navigation bar and on-screen keyboard Internet access client available.
    [Show full text]