FutureLink founders attack Microsoft over cover up
By John Pospisil
The founders of a failed ISP, FutureLink Online, have issued a statement attacking Microsoft, alleging that the company is trying to hide a multi-million dollar law suit that they have launched against it.
In a statement, the cofounders of FutureLink Online, Emile Farina and Dave Durko, said that ”Microsoft will appear in California Superior Court on Monday, 26 February, 2007 to ask the Hon Barbara M Scheper to exclude any reference of its name from court proceedings that pit the computer giant against FutureLink Online, a former ISP allegedly wiped out of business by Microsoft”.
According to the pair, the case (FutureLink Online, Inc., cross-complainant vs. Microsoft, Inc., cross- defendant, case no. PC019071) was brought in 1997 and is scheduled to be heard in early March 2007. It involves Microsoft’s $503 million purchase of WebTV and stems from Microsoft’s alleged “tortious interference” with a FutureLink contract and theft of FutureLink’s internet subscriber base, two actions which the pair claim lead to the demise of what was one of the fastest growing ISPs at the time that provided internet access to customers across the country via a national infrastructure.
“This is more than a modern-day David vs. Goliath. It’s a story of how corporate cannibal Microsoft stole the American Dream from us and then dragged us through 10 years of litigation,” said Farina, who credits life coach, friend, and mentor Tony Robbins for what Farina calls his determination “to right this wrong and finally have our day in court.”
I am a little worried by someone who thinks that name dropping “Tony Robbins” will help his case, so I checked out the calendar at the Los Angeles Superior Court, and there is indeed a court case that involves David Durko and “Funturenet Online”:
Case Number: PC019071
FUTURENET ONLINE, INC. VS DAVID DURKO ET AL
Case filed on 03/10/1997
02/26/2007 at 08:30 AM in department F46 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311
Jury Trial
So at least part of the story is true, but it’s not clear what Microsoft’s involvement is (if any) – which would be the point if there really was a cover up.
On the other hand, I suspect that there is much more to this case than is being revealed by Darina and Durko.
Related:
Entry was posted
on Friday, February 23rd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
under
Read more entries by John Pospisil.
Stumble It!
February 24th, 2007
Whats really interesting and perhaps may be a FIRST for Microsoft, is the fact that they are asking the judge in this case to hide the Microsoft name from the jury and the world. The argument being that as soon as a jury hears the Microsoft name that the jury would be prejudiced against them at the onset. Would,nt it be nice if we all could hide our name in a trial to save face…It looks like Microsoft now thinks it is powerful enough to rewrite law in the State Of California. What is it about THIS case that they are so afraid of, that they would stoop so low? Why didn,t they try using that rediculous tactict in the $1.52 billion dollar lawsuit that they lost against Alcatel-Lucent on Friday? Only time will tell…
April 9th, 2009
a little research into the plaintiffs sheds light on this… legal troubles abound…