OSNews

What the hell are you talking about? This is just listing the FACTS.

Didn't you miss the bit about yT employees still waiting for owed monies? It's a fact however ugly.

"On 23rd March this year, Bernd Korz and his team part ways with Magnussoft."
I thought Magnussoft did the parting. It's the same thing, but paints a different picture.

I share David's viewpoint, this does seem more like Bernd's version of events. It's boggling that you need to remind people how things happened, OSNews.

I answered all your questions. That should cover what the first 90% of my post was "talking about".

As to the remaining 10%, it was simply pointing out this kind of "defense" should have waited until Bernd made his statement concerning what occurred. Read below for why I classify the post as a hastily thrown together defense.

You and I have two differing opinions on what constitutes a fact.

These are two obvious non-factual events, as there is uncertainty involved.

In fact, the entire statement:



is debated further down in the comments on this story.

[Edit: http://www4.osnews.com/permalink?227608 <-- this is what I am talking about.]

I'd have been fine with a pure factual time line, but that's not what this is.

Maybe I went a bit far in calling it a defense, but if you were aiming to make a completely factual time line of events that left opinion by the wayside, you rather failed.

I have no problem with editorials "connecting the dots" and so forth, it's actually interesting to see how viewpoints have changed so drastically in two days from blind loyalty to admission of wrongdoings. I just don't understand making a "factual" time line containing "don't know" multiple times. To me, this made it seem like a slanted article, because the "don't know"'s seemed to support Bernd's side. Much like watching Fox News or watching CNN, there seems to be a slant to the writing.

That said, my original comment wasn't intended to be some "flipping out" moment, I answered the questions postulated, and that was my primary goal. My apologies if the very last paragraph upset somebody, it was merely my impression from having read the non-factual factual time line.

Edited 2007-04-04 23:25 UTC

No, the article does not take the side of anyone. This is clear when we say that the Koch contract was only about BeOS 5 and not Zeta and so forth. We simply layed out what we know about the case. Nothing more, nothing less.

>is debated further down in the comments on this story.

YellowTAB *did* buy the contract from Koch. The question is only if Zeta could be sold under that contract or not.

My understanding of permissive behavior here is that the contract from Koche was for the "Next Public BeOS Release." That is, post-R5.0.3 by one release. Either that could be 5.0.4 ( never released ) or Dano ( leaked, allegedly by Be, INC ( marginally constituting a release )).

Following this path, legality is sketchy, and could warrant a dispute between Access and yellowTAB as to whether or not Dano was leaked by Be, INC as an unofficial release, but a release nonetheless.

This was apparently the result of failure on part of the contract to specify what warranted a 'release' or to specify an exact revision designation.

However, one could argue, that because Be, INC supplied 5.0.4 to yellowTAB ( or Koche? ) that Dano was obviously not the intent of the contract, but the cross-argument is that 5.0.4 was never released, whereas Dano was ( even if not officially ).

Access would then have to argue that the contract 'implied' official releases only, but then Bernd could just fall back on the wonder of contracts... basically if it ain't written, it ain't there. Meaning that the contract COULD then become illegitimated by the court due to improper vagueness ( only preventing further usage, but no punitive damage rewards ), but that would be a stretch.

Access, would have no burden, of course, to prove it even intends to use the IP, it owns it... that is all that they need.

Now, if we consider that yellowTAB used Dano as the 'next-release' base, with a contract that permitted binary substitution ( with some source access ) of the 'next-release', then Zeta is 100% legit until proven otherwise, but is also perfectly safe for anyone to use as the legal issues can't even really hurt yellowTAB unless they get screwed over on legal defense.

--The loon

( Around for all these things, now nearly silently. )

You and I have two differing opinions on what constitutes a fact.

Eugenia does not know if these talks were ever finished, nor does she know if anything finalized got signed (although some draft contracts could have been signed).

...but we don't know what ever happened after their meeting.

These are two obvious non-factual events, as there is uncertainty involved.

What? This is 100% factual! It would be non-factual if we had started to speculate about what happened during the meeting-- but since we do not know, we just said, "we don't know". THAT is factual.

ormandj, you seem hell-bent on attacking Zeta, yT, and Bernd. This is fine by me, we live in a free world, but pleae do not force YOUR biased ideas on to Eugenia and I, who are just trying to be as close to the facts as possible.

Edited 2007-04-05 09:07

Thom,

>What? This is 100% factual!

It is and it isn't. Your wording made it sound like Koch never produced a R5 distro, when in fact they did for years. In fact, you could still buy R5 a year after Be went under in the UK. Koch media CD's mind you. As I said, GoBe never made it over here in a big way.

Thom,

FACTS don't have question marks at the end.

Sadly the timeline you present presents little of value because you don't actually know and facts about the various contracts that may or may not exist.

I don't know why those questions were there, in that form. Given the prior statement from Access regarding the lack of upside to compensate the costs of press releases, legal actions etc, they seem out of place and bizarrely oriented toward conspiracy theory.

James

OrmandJ, you are overreacting and it seems that you have made up your mind, so I will stop responding right here.

Fair enough. Also, you are quite correct, I made up my mind about Bernd a long time ago. There was more than enough evidence in how he conducted himself/his business to prove (in my mind) beyond all doubts what was going on. My thoughts have now been proven correct. It wasn't blind luck or some such, it's just common sense - everyone should have seen it coming from a mile away.

That said, the one thing I debate, did Bernd intentionally screw over people, or was it out of ignorance?

His follow-up to the "statement" he made today should clarify that completely. I'm leaning towards "he screwed people knowingly", but I won't say one way or another if this is the case. I will say, however, he did a terrible job in either case.

Edited 2007-04-04 23:23 UTC

I'd argue that if he knowingly screwed people, he did a marvelous job at it.

I have reason to suspect that he did, and this timeline is missing many facts that haven't been made public yet. These haven't been made public for the benefit of the community. As long as Zeta had a chance at becoming viable (Even if it was a very very slim chance with Mr. Korz in charge), there was no good reason to help destroy it by exposing some of the actions that were quite clearly knowingly carried out.

At this point, I and I suspect others are waiting to see what kind of statement Mr. Korz makes after consulting with is lawyer before saying any more.

The last thing I want to do is open myself or someone else up to potential law suits, weather that's slander, libel, or otherwise. So until this thing is really dead, my lips are sealed.

Mr. Korz has pulled several "all hope is lost, oh wait I found another gullible idiot" stop / starts with Zeta now. I want to make sure this horse is dead before I kick it some more.

After Koch got stiffed, YellowTab Bernd money, until Zeta became a lost Korz.

'Nuff said.

Modded you up one for some seriously creative use of names, there! Good going! Funny, too!

Thanks. Not quite sure what side of the line it's on but I've been waiting for a chance to use it. Maybe, if everyone can have a laugh it might help ease some of the frustration and anger around here.

What exactly is the point of this "timeline" and commentary? Another defense in disguise? That's what it sounds like. If you're attempting to bring the "other side of the story" to light, you might have wanted to wait until Bernd's official statement is out, joke as it might be.

Calm down dude. After Thom was all testy he's dished out a list of the key dirt on the Zeta affair. There's no need to flip into overdrive. Another reason to calm down is flipping out could give Bernd an edge before he's issued a statement. I don't trust that shady character or put anything past him. Give him one excuse to clam up or weasel out and don't be surprised if he grabs it with both hands.

He's likely to do that (clam up) either way, he doesn't need an "excuse" - it's been his modus operandi for years. I'm anxiously awaiting his "statement". That said, I'll quit pointing out slants in articles, quit pointing out flaws in arguments, and in general let people be clowns. I've done enough commentary on this subject as it is, people have got to be getting tired of me parroting the same things over and over (no matter how true they are.)

Somebody else want this torch? Looks like it's going to be burning for at least another week or two while Bernd talks with his "lawyer".

Meanwhile there has been some sort of a statemend by Korz: On April 4th, the German IT news site Golem.de also reported on the story and approached Korz with an inquiry, presumably on the legality of ZETA.

Korz' response takes an even more bizarre turn than I had expected. He says, he was unable to comment because these issues were beyond his knowledge, since they were the business of yellowTAB with whom he is no longer involved and hasn't been for more than 12 month. yellowTAB, he says, is represented by the court-appointed insolvency administrator. See http://www.golem.de/0704/51528-2.html, last paragraph.

It looks like Korz is the Zaphod Beeblebrox type of personality. He cannot recall, what his former self, the then executive director of yellowTAB did.

And even though after the demise of yellowTAB he has continued to develop ZETA, he maintains, that he is unaffected by these legal issues.

Edited 2007-04-05 13:29

He cannot recall, what his former self, the then executive director of yellowTAB did.

I have no recollection? Classic. The number of times that's been said by people who wound up disgraced or in the slammer is legion. Once the big press starts sniffing it's not long before the police start knocking on the door. This could get big... fast.

I reckon there could be a book deal in this, and nobody is better placed or more involved than people at OS News to deliver that. Robert X. Cringely did well with Triumph of the nerds, and there's no reason to suppose it's not worth calling an agent on this one.

there were two "official" persons in YT, Bernd and some man from former half-fake German "multimedia" company.
Maybe Benrd points on deals of that person?

I've stated it a billion times. Legal reasons. It did not behoove ACCESS to make public statements concerning Zeta, as it would have cost them far more than they could have ever gotten out of it. Simple economics/business.

They didn't take legal action for legal reasons? Nice one. That's a highly vague, and speculative, reason. No normal company of any kind waits around while someone else uses their source code - if they're in the right. Also, there is no way that it would make any kind of economic sense to PalmSource/Access at all. Someone else is using their source code, they believe, illegally. It also doesn't explain why they just didn't come out and say it.

Why not? They didn't feel it merited front page exposure on their website, "Lefty" was trying to avoid negativity on ACCESS's pages, etc. There are surely a million reasons.

Again, vague and speculative. Any company that believes it has been wronged in an illegal way makes it very well known and takes appropriate action. Apart from an exceedingly vague "if Bernd Korz holds a legitimate license to the BeOS code..." statement, there is nothing. You're the ones who supposedly own this code Access. You tell us! A comment on a forum just doesn't cut it if they have something to say.

Why exactly would you think that this would cause Access negative publicity?

The above are just some possible reasons. I am not speaking on "Lefty"'s behalf, only suggesting some possibilities/logical reasons - of which there are MANY.

Yer. Unsubstantiated speculation. You were accusing the article of doing.....what exactly?

Just invented it - "blame MS":

ACCESS canot say anything officially for same reason why YT cannot. Super NDA with super penalties.

Next question - why the hell they signed such thing?
Answer - Be Inc inheritance ownned by PalmSource.

Question - Inheritance?

Answer - do you remember MS and Be settlement/agreement when MS paid USD 23000000 to Be Inc?

We may suspect, that there was hidden part of contract, where Be Inc took obligation never ever to try to enter x86/PC market.

And it was inherited by Palm, so, when Palm/PS did the deal with YT, agreement was still in power. Thus, Palm couldn't admit that they licensed IP to someone who tries to work at PC market, so, to play in MS playground.

And thus all that silence and secrets:)

Edited 2007-04-05 15:49

> Question - Inheritance?

> Answer - do you remember MS and Be
> settlement/agreement when MS paid USD 23000000 to Be
> Inc?

> We may suspect, that there was hidden part of
> contract, where Be Inc took obligation never ever to
> try to enter x86/PC market.

AFAIR, the MS deal happened way after the IP was sold to Palmsource, so this is absolutely not the reason. Be can't retrospectively add clauses to a contract of sale. Otherwise, let me sell you a house ;-) Oh, next year I'll add a clause to the contract to say you have to sell it back to me for €10... you'd be okay with that tho, wouldn't you? ;-)

are you sure about dates and responsibilities?:(
Sad if that is.
Inspite "Fools Day" is over, I thought it might be Really Big Conspiracy Theory:(

"Why exactly would you think that this would cause Access negative publicity? "

There really is no such thing guys any publicity that gets your name in front of thousands of potential customers is good publicity.

I used to work for a company that would spend the whole weekend junk faxing people, it didn't matter that it was illegal the fine was $500 we would make that within 15 minutes of opening Monday morning so if not when we got caught it didn't matter.

The whole notion of their being no such thing as bad publicity is obviously wrong. Its like most things, it depends. I guarentee you if CNN ran a story about how the meat in Burger Kings burgers was actually recycled feces I think that they might not like that. Wouldn't be good for sales.

Seriously Proctor & Gamble, Walmart etc spend millions and millions countering bad publicity every year. If bad publicity was good for them why bother.

I guarentee you if CNN ran a story about how the meat in Burger Kings burgers was actually recycled feces I think that they might not like that.

Apples and oranges and a very bad analogy. First, Access doesn't have the influence on public opinion and public reaction CNN has (or can have). Second, there's a huge difference between some merry band of free-lance developers -- with or without the right to modify certain OS code -- moving around from basement to basement in Germany and BK. Third, there's the issue of libel. Wild claims like what you offer by way of analogy would be actionable if untrue. CNN would have to verify that's actually BK's practice or BK would sue the feces and recycled feces out of CNN.

"""
The reason there is so much secrecy is probable due to the innumerable lines of SCO code involved.
"""

Billions and billions!

-Carl Sagan

Yes indeed, there is SCO code in Zeta! Just an example:
;
^ that's SCO code!!!

It's clear now: SCO didn't sue IBM because they wanted to be bought by them: that was just a diversion. The hidden purpose was that they wanted to be bought by yT. When it comes to strategy no-one can outsmart SCO!

It doesn't matter.

It doesn't?

What a sad state of affairs when proper english
"doesn't matter" on an english based, news focused website.

Which speculations?

Speculations was maybe the wrong word, the "interesting questions" posed near the end.

Speculations about the contract with Koch.

It seems to me it covered making derivative works and branding. How did Koch came in possession of source code etc.

1 2nd this. my copy of r5 is from koch, and one of the first they made (i have to install r5 from the shareware-disk because they mixed up the lables )

YellowTab and Magnussoft don't have deep pockets, the product never sold like gangbusters, and Bernd (if he went beyond whatever license agreement he had) isn't important enough to sue. The only remaining reason anyone would sue is out of principle, and it would be more costly for them than anyone they accused of IP infringement.

Didn't Zeta sell more than BeOS originally did?

How much did that gross?

Why didn't Palm or Access see any money?

Where did the money go?

Edited 2007-04-04 23:29

Didn't Zeta sell more than BeOS originally did?
Hardly a measure of success given that Be started giving it away after the Apple deal fell through.

How much did that gross?
Not enough to justify continued development and sale, apparently.

Why didn't Palm or Access see any money? Where did the money go?
What money? You're equating sales with profit, and I don't think BeOS or Zeta were ever in the black. From everything I've been able to gather, Be was floating on venture capital and never came close to realizing a profit. I wouldn't expect Zeta to have fared any better.

"Hardly a measure of success given that Be started giving it away after the Apple deal fell through."
what means "giving away" - "for free?".

If so, the deal failed in about 1996, and "free" BeOS saw the light in march/april 2000.

what means "giving away" - "for free?".
Yes, the limited PE. How many copies were downloaded or distributed before Be sold its assets?

If so, the deal failed in about 1996, and "free" BeOS saw the light in march/april 2000.
Like I wrote, AFTER the deal fell through. You have to remember the climate in the late '90s with venture capital flowing like crazy. Be's misfortune came when the tech bubble burst and the rivers of VC dried up -- which was about the same time the free PE was released. That wasn't enough to save the company because there just wasn't demand for its operating system.

lucky13 wrote:
"-(After reading Eugenia's World Plan on her blog last weekend, I'm pretty sure the economics and business part of it is totally lost on her.)"

missed that one, but this one she wrote made me kind of sad:

-"One could argue that the future of BeOS lies with Haiku. But the reality is, the future of BeOS doesn't even exist. The "operating system days" where several hobby/alternative OSes made the round in the news outlets are long gone. Linux has taken that 3rd place in the OS market and nobody gives a shit anymore about OSes like SkyOS, Syllable, ReactOS or Haiku. These OSes make a much smaller impact today than they used to do back in 2001.

This is why I tried to drive OSNews away from OSes and more into the general technology campground. There is no money to be made in operating system [news] anymore."

ouch. I have no illusions that Haiku is ever going to be anything remotely mainstream (I would SO love to be proved wrong though) but that doesn't mean I don't give a shit about it, or other alternate operating systems either for that matter. it's actually the reason I come here. I can find info on the mainstream systems practically anywhere on the web. I come here to fuel my interest for all operating systems, but those alternate ones in particular. ahwell...

missed that one

I haven't seen anything so extensive in support of centralized planning since the Berlin Wall came down.
http://eugenia.blogsome.com/2007/03/26/the-perfect-society/

I come here to fuel my interest for all operating systems, but those alternate ones in particular.

So do I. I understand (and agree with) what she means, though. OSNews does a better job covering those alternative OSes than anyone else does, but they have to cover stuff that can pay the bills, too. And in fairness, the alternative OSes are still getting covered (and by Eugenia) -- just look at this article and thread.

'Linux has taken that 3rd place in the OS market and nobody gives a shit anymore about OSes like SkyOS, Syllable, ReactOS or Haiku. These OSes make a much smaller impact today than they used to do back in 2001. '

Well, Reactos is an upcoming operating system which development will strengthen also Wine. In 2001 nobody discussed Reactos.

And Freedos is a good choice for embedded technology, which comnpetes pretty well with MS Dos 6.

Haiku is a Beos reservate but hey, there are still Amiga supporters out there and I love Geoworks.

Mac OS X was in a very similar state despite they had more money and a critical mass of customers.

Why did Palmsource never took any legal action against YellowTAB (that we know of)?

For the same reason Access says they haven't: it wouldn't be in their financial interest to do so.

However, this does not explain, why the company never publicly clarified the legal situation before April 4th. This would have come at no cost. If there was no business relationship between both companies and if they were really so annoyed about yellowTAB as to send them cease-and-desist letters "on multiple occasions, it is hard to understand why they never went public before yesterday.

this does not explain, why the company never publicly clarified the legal situation before April 4th. This would have come at no cost.
I addressed that matter by noting that Access had time on their side and only had to wait for Zeta to die. It was bound for failure. Zeta was an unprofitable venture. Ask Be's old developers and the VC people who probably got pennies on the dollar for their investments in Be. Ask Yellow Tab. Ask Magnussoft. Ask anyone else who's willing to waste time looking at the amount of resources it would require to (1) produce in retail-worthy volumes, (2) continue code development, (3) advertise, and (4) even provide Zeta with a website and the look at the demand for Be or Zeta and how the income would never match the costs required to continue its development.

There was no need for Access to do anything that would give Zeta any publicity (good or bad). All they had to do was wait and let Zeta fail. They did that. They don't have to clarify anything to anyone if they hold the Be IP -- that's their call and they owe no one an explanation for how or why they do business.

Well, if Bernd Korz screwed up people by selling them something that he does not own, it would have been the damn duty of ACCESS to go public and warn people, that they are getting defrauded. One could say that, by staying silent for so long, ACCESS has made itself complicit in this fraudulent operation, all under the condition that Korz had no legal rights to use the BeOS sources.

Well, if Bernd Korz screwed up people by selling them something that he does not own, it would have been the damn duty of ACCESS to go public and warn people
How many people actually bought Zeta? Do you REALLY believe it's worth siccing a corporate lawyer who specializes in international IP issues and bills at $500 per hour with a 200 hour per case minimum on a little band of Zeta developers?

One could say that, by staying silent for so long, ACCESS has made itself complicit in this fraudulent operation
In which case one would be wrong. Their silence is neither complicity nor a culpable action of fraud. Besides, they made private contact with the party they believed was violating their IP. That's all that matters.

There was no need for Access to do anything that would give Zeta any publicity (good or bad). All they had to do was wait and let Zeta fail. They did that. They don't have to clarify anything to anyone if they hold the Be IP -- that's their call and they owe no one an explanation for how or why they do business.

Taking legal action can get expensive and messy very quickly, and suck up management time that would be better spent on shipping product and looking after customers. Business reputation is important, so Access may not want to have seen their name tarnished by a shady company, or have customers think they've lost focus. Why ruin a good business for small beer?

Well, if Bernd Korz screwed up people by selling them something that he does not own, it would have been the damn duty of ACCESS to go public and warn people, that they are getting defrauded. One could say that, by staying silent for so long, ACCESS has made itself complicit in this fraudulent operation, all under the condition that Korz had no legal rights to use the BeOS sources.

Access have done nothing wrong. If anyone should be investigated and charged with criminality it's Bernd Korz. I agree that customers being sold a product with no future (distribution cut off date) or support (no rights to source code) have been badly served but that doesn't make Access complicit. They're a victim as well. This is why I think the police should take charge.

Edited 2007-04-05 16:26

I disagree with your assessment:

Yes, it was a terrible business model from the point of view that it took far too long to kill off the PowerPC system and the port - quite frankly, it was a money loseing waste of an effort to continue developing a machine that occupied a niche within a niche within a niche.

Lets say they went right off the bat with BeOS, killed off PowerPC and hardware business long before R4, and focused on purely on the x86 platform - they wouldn't have had the mirrade of issues which plagued them.

They would have retained alot more money which they could have then pumped back into development rather than propping up their hardware business - but even then, it was an operating system going for a niche, and we all have seen those who occupy a niche - they eventually die, there isn't the volume to keep up with the rising costs that are associated with software development.

The only real hope, is the opensource implementation in the form of HaikuOS - I said it around 8 years ago, the only way that BeOS can survive is for the opensource community rally around; companies come and go, but if the code is opensource, there is always going to be someone or something willing to pick up the ball and run with it.

I disagree with your assessment:

My assessment was that it was a bad business built on a worse business model. Then you describe how it was a bad business built on a worse business model. So just how do you disagree? By hypotheticals!

You can play hypotheticals all you want but that doesn't change what Be was or that it's defunct today. There was no demand for it on any platform -- not to the extent that anyone could make money from it. There weren't profits to be made that could be rolled back into development.

Open sourcing BeOS wouldn't have done anything that Be didn't try -- and they had plenty of venture capital money to play with. I have nothing to say about the Haiku project except that I admire its progress; I haven't used it, and I doubt I ever will. Technically and with respect to consumer demand, I don't think it has better legs under it than Be ever did.

Now for some tough love -- and I promise this isn't flame bait, it's just the cold hard reality. I wrote on my blog last night:
...I think that's one of the great ironies: Be paid no homage to the past with support for legacy hardware — BeOS was intended only for current hardware. In recreating an open source BeOS, will Haiku be relevant to our increasingly smaller wireless future or will it be relegated to our increasingly archaic desktops?
http://lucky13.blogsavy.com/2007/04/04/another-beos-spin-off-bites-...

In trying to be a modern desktop system, Haiku already way behind the eight ball. I don't