OSNews

I'm guessing the safest thing to do is to stick with Haiku. I really don't think there was any really transfer to Yellowtab of any rights, but maybe I'm wrong. I really, really liked BEOS. It's as shame to see what has happened to it.

One thing I wonder though is if PalmSource or Access (or whoever) really cares. I can't imagine Zeta is any threat to any of them. They might not really care, or maybe they could give the rights to them to use the Beos source for $20! Unless of course some of it wound up in the Palm code.

looks like we get ready for a barbecue. anyone for some roast bernd?

You reap what you sow.

I hope the full weight of the law is thrown at Bernd Korz.

What is the maximum jail term in Germany for selling stolen goods?

Is there a "mail fraud" law in Germany too?

"What is the maximum jail term in Germany for selling stolen goods?"

Selling stolen good, in german "Hehlerei", may be punished by law with a maximum of 5 years imprisonment. Alternatively, a fine can be imposed.

See § 259 StGB: http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/259.html

Even the try is accusable (clause 3 op. cit.).

"Is there a "mail fraud" law in Germany too?"

Can you be more specific? Fraud seems to mean "Unterschlagung", fraud of mail? This is two delicts in one: First the fraud itself (§ 246 StGB), second the breakup of the sanctity of the mail (maybe § 206 StGB).

(Note: StGB means "Strafgesetzbuch": criminal code.)

Edited 2007-04-10 22:13

Fraud means Betrug in German, Unterschlagung is embezzlement.

I'm not sure if mail fraud is their biggest problem since they actually soled Zeta on a German Shopping network and since YellowTAB would have knowingly involved the network they might take some legal action against YellowTAB to potentially protect themselves.

Anyway, IANAL and don't really care, but personally I believe that if YellowTAB did this people should stop supporting them since supporting companies with dubious morals is definitely sending the wrong signal.

Well, I'll give the short version.

It looks like Zeta is illegal, from all the information that has been gathered ( though this still has to be proven in court ).

Leszek mentioned that Bernd will not be releasing any statements this week. Instead the insolvency administrator of yT will give an official statement.

In other words, Bernd is saying the deals were made with yT and he is not responsible, but yT is instead ( yT is bankrupt, so lawsuit would do nothing to them ). And I'm guessing yT must have just ran itself to be solely responsible? And yT also negotiated the non-existent license agreements too?

#1 Magnussoft may never be allowed to sell Zeta ever again ( & got stuck paying development costs for 1.21 & 1.5 - took losses).

#2 Access claims Zeta is rightful theirs, but has to go to court to get it given to them. ( otherwise Bernd holds onto Zeta ).

#3 Bernd holds onto Zeta code and if no legal action against him, then he walks away "Scott Free" - gets to keep the small fortune he made off Zeta.

Access and Magnussoft are within their rights to take legal action against Bernd ( and/or yT ). Whether they will is another question altogether and will reveal itself in the coming months.

Access and Magnussoft are within their rights to take legal action against Bernd ( and/or yT ). Whether they will is another question altogether and will reveal itself in the coming months.

Depends on the amount of that "small fortune" you were referring to.

Having the source and being legally entitled to use it are two different things!

Of course yT has the source, that is how they were able to make some changes to Zeta.

But, how did they get it? ( From Be, Palm or leaked on the Net? ).

And, just having the source does not mean they have the right to use it ( or to make & sell Zeta ) - requires proper license agreements. Which apparently do not exist.

Gassee denying any contract suggests there was never any agreement as Be Inc was his company before he sold up and joined the Palm board.

Things were even more complicated.IIRC
3)Sale of Be Inc to PALM
4)Split of Palm to Palm and PalmSource
5)Transfer of what? Not sure that some old funny contract was transferred even from Palm to PalmSource.

Palm did not buy Be, Inc., just its intellectual property assets.

I thought the royalty cheques were going to the:
Bernd Trust Fund in Germany :-)

Or maybe,

What royalty cheques? Didn't you know that the negotiated license agreements were for Palm to get $0?

Afterall, Zeta wasn't even profitable. :-)

Ok, just a little humor.

> I really hope Haiku didn't take a look at it!

I try my best since months to not look at any Haiku source code (the few of mine, in particular), at least!

;-)

How come? Haiku's code is not cursed. It's a new born. You can and you should take a look at it

We try our best to keep the BeOS spirit in Haiku. If BeOS source, its spirit, is cursed, we may have cursed Haiku too.

Maybe we should change our license for a more esoteric-aware open source license, where we will refute any responsabilities regarding whatever esoteric damage Haiku could cause if you use it, code for it, look at it or even just talk about it.

;-)

Correct you are.

With Palm & Access, there would be no Zeta or BeOS derivative. BeOS would have died off with Be and hopefully reborn again with Haiku.

The community is somewhat divided. Some people really like Zeta and think it is great and others wish it was never born ( or even started or should have died off sooner ).

I can say, that Zeta gave a larger presence to BeOS ( probably helped the community grow ) by getting more people to give it another or first look.

And though it has shortcomings and is overpriced, it is the best BeOS out there that is available today.

Bottom line - who care anymore

Well I care. Shouldn't Bernd be held accountable for his actions and business activities?

If someone runs a business legally and profits from it, then I'm all for it. But doing it illegally and getting away with it sends out what type of message?

Next thing you know, there are businesses "popping" up all over the place doing illegal stuff, profiting from it and getting away with it.

Also, Zeta ( and even BeOS MAX ) are the present and Haiku is the future. I don't believe Haiku R1 is coming out for 8 or more months. It is taking forever to get the release out ( and then it'll only be as good as R5 - so I doubt you'll use it much and most may stick with Zeta until Haiku R2 ).

I agree with tonestone57

If some one are doing something illegal they must pay (sorry Bernd but this are how it is)

But he did a great work with Zeta and his team took it big steps forward.

I tested BeOSMax the other day and man I was 7 years back. back then i didn't like the changes YT made with the tracker, deskbar and Preference app but now I can't be without it

Zeta feels like a commercial OS and not a hobby OS like BeOSR5.
I hade the same feeling for R5 in 2000 but I guess I have bigger demands on how an OS looks like OS today.

I hope that Access gets there hands on Zeta 1.5 so they later perhaps can do something with it.. feels like they listens.

Nobody can say what happened with Palm ( or why they kept quiet ), except Senior Officials that worked @ Palm during that timeframe.

Right now, Access is saying they have no license agreements. They've tried to get in contact with Bernd; he hasn't responded to them.

David S, from Access, left a post on Bernd's blog trying to get in touch with Bernd. Bernd's blog disappears the next day. What do you make of that?

Bernd is not making any effort to contact Access and sort this out. What does that tell you?

If I run company "C" and Company "X" accuses me of using their technology (ie: source code), wouldn't the first step be to get in touch with them to sort it out? Or would I ignore them and hope they just go away ( so I continue on, business as usual )?

If the proper license agreements exist, why doesn't Bernd get in touch with Access to show them? Why no offical statement from Bernd? Has Bernd even denied the illegal accusation from Access? What else has Bernd said, other than saying he'll talk to his lawyer & release an official statement this week? ( which I hear he won't do now ).

Staying quiet and not trying to resolve this with Access makes him look guilty. (ie: Bernd knows Access won't take legal action against him - which is the only way to prove the illegal claim by Access - so staying quiet and disappearing may be in his best interests - hoping that it'll blow over).

On the basis of previous suspicions and the latest round of information, it's clear to me that Bernd Korz doesn't have the legal right to distribute Zeta or use the sorce code, and he is responsible for his actions as CEO during his time at YellowTab. He has lied, stolen, and committed fraud. I want to see him criminally prosecuted and face jail time and severe fines.

The lessons of the Barlow Clowes, Robert Maxwell, and Polly Peck scandals are ringing loudly in my ears. The theft, vanity, and negligence these people commit is a shabby breach of trust that can do real harm. Smooth talking rule breakers can get away with it for years, but their huge egos usually get the better of them. It may be a sad ending but the good news is it clears the deck for Haiku.

Edited 2007-04-11 00:07

They weren't 'right' because they knew anything more than anyone else, they were 'right' because that's the way it turned out. Similar to flipping a coin. ... If Zeta was illegal, lots of people took it in the shorts. But the people who owned the code and could have stopped it sooner lost nothing.

Reasonable cause for suspicion was there from the beginning and just mounted as time went by. Now clearer doubt has been cast on Bernd Korz claims more people are coming forward and joining the dots.

Who are you to say whether the people who own the code lost nothing? Bernd Korz took money off investors and customers that didn't belong to him, and may have damaged Jean-Louis Gassée and Access reputations.

Bernd Korz is no Robin Hood, and this is not a victimless crime. The only unanswered questions are caused by Bernd Korz lack of providing proof. He should be held accountable for that, preferably in a criminal court.

I'm tired of this getting regurgitated over and over. It was very obvious this was a sham to a lot of people, based on how things were handled. You call it "flipping a coin" as if it was pure luck - you're off the mark.

A business not asserting it has legal rights to sell the product it is pushing even to its financial detriment makes a pretty clear statement, that being "no legal rights". I'm sorry that a few people were absolutely blind to this, but it's been clear from the beginning that yT was "shady" based on this and numerous other happenings in its existence. You'd have to be blind or blindly supportive of the company/Bernd not to have seen this. I, like many others did. There was no coin flip involved.



What more do you need? The company that owns the IP (fact) says Bernd doesn't have legal rights. JLG now says yT didn't have rights from Palmsource either. What more could you possibly want? Do you need a sworn statement from Bernd that he ripped off a bunch of people selling a product that he didn't legally have rights to sell? There is plenty of information available now to damn Zeta, the only question is Bernd's intent (which is also fairly clear but not absolute.)



Are you nuts? "If"? Wow. Some people are loyal until the very end. Sounds like you'll believe Zeta was legally sold even if they toss Bernd in jail.



What?


[Edit: Spelling correction]

Edited 2007-04-11 01:44 UTC

Are you nuts? "If"? Wow. Some people are loyal until the very end. Sounds like you'll believe Zeta was legally sold even if they toss Bernd in jail.

You seem to get that a lot with these charismatic cults and dictators. It seems people buy into a dream and questioning it upsets that. It's like some of those old ladies getting sucked in by some charmer. Maybe Bernd Korz had a vision and got sucked in beyond his depth but when it turned to lies and stealing it became something else.

"They weren't 'right' because they knew anything more than anyone else, they were 'right' because that's the way it turned out."
or they were right because they didn't blindly trust someone who made ridiculous claims and used common sense?

"Similar to flipping a coin."
No, not at all like flipping a coin.

I didn't support Bernd or buy Zeta. The Shady cloud hanging over the business was one factor, but the sky-high price and lack of hardware support were bigger reasons.

Fair play. With Zeta imploding and Access going in another direction, it removes a distraction and stops people treading on each others toes. If Haiku keeps itself together something legal, cheaper, and better should emerge out the other side.

It looks to me like the guy has left the building... ;-)

Grabbed this off Google's cache:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:kjVMYhLNU8gJ:www.berndsworld.com...

"When you care about that 7 steps you have a 100% ZETA compatible software. You can mail me your software to control it and if all steps work well. I will also make a stress test with it and you get then a Logo you can add to your AboutWindow. It will let the user see that this software will work flawlessly on his ZETA installation and not destroy anything. Both parties will really only benefit from it. You are NOT allowed to use the Logo without my permissions."

It looks like Bernd Korz was really touchy about people using his intellectual property when it suited him. If someone "borrowed" the logo his comments and prior legal threats suggest he'd be very quick to do something, but it's interesting how quickly he shut down when someone stood up to him.

Well simply try this on Linux:

$ whois berndsworld.com

There's an address and phone number, if you wish to talk to him.

"I would like to say Bernd should not pay fines or jailed."

Uh, what? Of course he should pay. As I said before, I don't long for him to become bankrupt, but come on; if you break the law you get to pay.
Why should he be treated differently?

Procedure v. Justice. There is no justice in the law since it is all procedural. Shunning is an extremely effective form of punishment and would not punish his family - just Bernd.

I submit the entire Haiku (BeOS) community knew, to one degree or another, Zeta was an illegal hack. I never bought into it and questioned its legality way back.

...when I saw a BMW parked with its windows open. I looked in out of curiosity and saw two passports on the passenger seat. Both had the same picture in them, but one said "Bernd" and the other said "Johan". Weird.

This guy?

http://www.copperlily.com/AboutRayWinstone/Images/bricklane.jpg

Edited 2007-04-11 05:28

This seems highly unlikely: Palm had paid $11 million for that IP, why would they effectively give it away, royalty-free, no less, in such a fashion? From a shareholder's point of view, this is called "corporate malfeasance",and US securities laws take quite a dim view of it.

I'm not sure why I should be the one reminding people that Palm turned down a petition from BeUnited right around the time this magical undocumented transaction is purportedly supposed to have happened, and they did it in no uncertain terms: "...we have made a firm decision NOT to license any part of this technology other than that which we incorporate into the Palm OS".

So why would they then give a "nod and a wink" allowing Mr. Korz or yellowTAB to make Zeta? If Palm made that declaration, and then turned around and did license it (royalty-free and without disclosing that they had done so, dodging their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders), then we're right back to corporate malfeasance again.

I don't buy it. I can imagine much more likely theories.

Moreover, who would possibly think it a good idea to base a business on an arrangement like that?

Let me say it again:

Palm bought the intellectual property of Be, Inc. in 2001. They didn't buy Be, and they didn't buy Be's obligations. There were no source licensees at the time of this sale. There have been no source licensees since that sale.

Even if (strictly hypothetically, purely for the sake of the argument) Koch's contract had included source access--and I want to stress that there's nothing whatsoever to indicate that it did--since it wasn't disclosed to Palm at the time of the purchase, any agreement between Koch and Be immediately would have become null and void when the sale was completed.

This would be not only because the obligation was undisclosed, but also because the intellectual property was no longer Be's to dispose of at that point. Koch didn't have a contract with Palm; nor did they have a contract with Be, which ceased to exist shortly after the sale. I'd say that the absolute limits of such a contract, at best, would be to allow them to dispose of whatever copies of BeOS (not Zeta!) they had in hand at the time and then to call it a day. Period.

Let's say you and I have had an agreement that you can drive my car on Saturdays, and I then sell the car. If you go and drive that very car the following Saturday, without bothering yourself to ask the new owner if he minds, you're a car thief, pure and simple, and the fact that someone who no longer owns the car said you could drive it is immaterial.



Too bad he seems to have "probably" taken in a bunch of money "relying on IP that officially does not belong to him."

Lefty: just for the sake of argument, it's pretty clear at this point that Access hasn't cared about BeOS's intellectual property for some time. Palm originally bought it for PalmOS "Cobalt," which nobody actually built devices with. We've gone through several regime changes by this time, and while PalmOS 5 lives on as Access's "Garnet OS," Cobalt is very clearly dead. There's really no business reason for Access not to give it away for peanuts... now. At this point it's not much better than being the legal owners of WordStar's code base.

Of course, your real point is absolutely correct. Back when Palm actually bought BeOS, they did have such a business reason, and they explicitly stated that they would not license it. David Nagel, PalmSource CEO, wrote to BeUnited back in January 2002: "We have fully discussed the possibility of licensing the BeOS operating system. At this time we have made a firm decision NOT to license any part of this technology other than that which we incorporate into the Palm OS."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/01/15/palm_scuppers_beos_coop_hop...

The most plausible theory is that yellowTAB did a deal with Koch Media, the German BeOS Pro distributor, and inherited Koch's contracts; JLG might not know those details. It was hard not to miss that whenever yT was asked for details about what those legal rights were, they essentially just said, "Trust us, we can do what we're doing." This didn't engender a lot of confidence. I suspect that as a distributor they had rights to do whatever they wanted to with everything around BeOS, i.e., all the bundled applications, and likely even replacing system components as long as they could do them "clean room" (or with an open source license, i.e., OpenTracker).

I'm not sure Bernd ever claimed they had the rights to the source code; as I recall, he got very weaselly when pressed, making hand-waving claims about having "enough" rights and that nobody should worry their pretty little heads over it. Can any former yT employee confirm that they actually did have the source code?

I'm a little disappointed that things ended this way, but in some ways I'm disappointed that, if this was really illegal, it wasn't stomped on from the get-go.

I suspect that as a distributor they had rights to do whatever they wanted to with everything around BeOS, i.e., all the bundled applications, and likely even replacing system components as long as they could do them "clean room" (or with an open source license, i.e., OpenTracker).

BeOS as an entirety would constitute a copyrighted work and any modification that wasn't expressly laid down any license agreement would be an infringement. Looking from the outside it's possible but unlikely this level of customisation would be allowable.

Koch Media was merely a distributor, and the best reading of what I remember about what was said about the contract was that was as far as it went. Going from this to it being a license for a developer to push their own brand is a stretch too far.

This is incorrect if contracts were null and void by selling the business then this would be done on a daily basis. I am not saying Bernd had one or not only that selling the company doesn't void the current contracts. Now in this case Be wasn't sold the IP in question was that still wouldn't negate any current contracts it would have been up to Be to disclose them but failing to do that does not nullify the original agreement. Take your car analogy if I sell you a car that has a bank loan my failing to tell you doesn't mean the bank no longer gets it's money.

This is incorrect if contracts were null and void by selling the business then this would be done on a daily basis. ... Take your car analogy if I sell you a car that has a bank loan my failing to tell you doesn't mean the bank no longer gets it's money.

This is my understanding. While Bernd Korz has yet to provide anything worth showing, if Be intellectual property was misrepresented this would put JLG & Co in a very difficult position.

Personally, I don't believe Bernd Korz does have anything showing. Documentation that valuable would be stored somewhere very safe and have multiple working copies easily at hand. So far, no show.