Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 6th Sep 2003 00:49 UTC, submitted by Jill
BeOS & Derivatives Be Inc. and Microsoft Corp. today announced that the parties have reached a mutually acceptable mediated settlement of an antitrust lawsuit filed by Be Inc. in February 2002. Be claimed that Microsoft maintained its monopoly by having exclusive dealing arrangements with PC OEMs prohibiting the sale of PCs with multiple preinstalled OSes. Be will receive a payment from Microsoft, after attorney's fees, in the amount of $23,250,000 USD to end further litigation, and Microsoft... admits no wrongdoing. UPDATE: BeOSJournal.org has an interview with ex-Be employees Dan Sandler, Baron Arnold, and Dave Brown. Interesting is also Frank Boosman's blog on the issue:
Order by: Score:
Damn!
by imaginereno on Sat 6th Sep 2003 00:56 UTC

F--k!

OMFG
by hugh jeego on Sat 6th Sep 2003 00:58 UTC

OMFG!!!
Now they can get OEMs to bundle BeOS...oh wait they can't.

This isn't even a slap on the wrist!

It's a good thing the market will destory MS with free software.

-Hugh

no wrongdoing?
by contrasutra on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:00 UTC

I know its "innocent until proven guilty", but if you were really innocent, why would you settle? Especially considering MS does have enough lawyers to fight off an unjust lawsuit.

I think the amount speaks for itself, MS is guilty ;-) Oh well.


You'd think all these lawsuits MS has had over anti-trust would finally convince some of the trolls that MS's bussiness practices are unethical, but they keep persisting that "Its only people trying to be l33t that dis MS".

Did I spell "dis" right?

LAME
by ryan on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:00 UTC

i could get more money out of mcdonalds by saying i spilled coffe on myself.

winfs
by me on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:05 UTC

could this be where they got their supposedly innovative filesystem from?

winfs
by ryan on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:11 UTC

"could this be where they got their supposedly innovative filesystem from?"

don't think so. Palm should have the rights to that one.

RE: winfs
by Eugenia on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:12 UTC

WinFS is in development since 1993, it has nothing to do with BFS. Please don't speculate whatever you want.

RE: winfs
by contrasutra on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:14 UTC

Yeah, this was anti-trust, not copyright/patent.

This was Microsoft taking its MontyPython-like foot and crushing little things.

RE: no wrongdoing?
by Stu on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:16 UTC

> Did I spell "dis" right?

I believe the correct spelling is di55 !

Totally agree about the amount speaking for itself. With settlements like these the MS warchest should have enough left to buy a few medium sized countries ... and then for coffee and doughnuts all round - woohoo!!

invest it in BeoS
by tech_user on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:24 UTC

they should invest in in resurrecting BeOs

re: beFair
by 2501 on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:27 UTC

is zeta-BeOS getting some of this money??????? i can't wait for this new version. MS can't continue "manipulating" or controlling the software industry. this happens when you can't compete against other companie. a big win for the Be community.

beFair.

- 2501

tech_user
by Vargasan on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:35 UTC

"they should invest in resurrecting BeOs"

I think Be Inc. learned their lesson the last time that BeOS failed.

re: winfs
by DCMonkey on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:44 UTC

Besides, MS probably just bought this: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1558604979

;)

BTW, according to that book, work on BFS wasn't started until September 1996. MS had been floating talk of "Cairo" before that (possibly 1993, as Eugenia mentions). Also, according to that book, earlier BeOS versions had a database separate from the FS to track attributes.

So, at best you could say MS and Be inspired each other to compete in this space. BeOS eventually pulled it off with BFS. MS for whatever reason has felt the need to wait till now to make another go of it.

Vargasan
by wing on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:44 UTC

It was the focus shift IMO, that killed it.

RE: winfs
by NULL on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:44 UTC

Eugenia wrote:
"WinFS is in development since 1993, it has nothing to do with BFS. Please don't speculate whatever you want."

It seems a bit far-fetched, I daresay (Wouldn't it have been released by this point?). Then again, I know not how long it takes to design & implement a good file system from the ground up. Do you by any chance have the source which states WinFS begun in 1993?

RE: winfs
by Eugenia on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:46 UTC

> It seems a bit far-fetched, I daresay (Wouldn't it have been released by this point?).

Not necessarily. Not everything MS is developing at their labs is going live.

As for BFS itself (answering to DCMonkey), it is inspired by SGI's XFS. Dominic used to work for SGI before he went to Be to create BFS (then he went to QNX, now he works for Apple btw).

ex-Be engineers
by Eugenia on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:48 UTC

And talking about other Be engineers, some are left at PalmSource, others are at Danger, Inc., others at SONY Games, others at There.com, while 4 core ex-Be engineers are now at OpenWave (including my husband).

This kinda sucks.
by Darius on Sat 6th Sep 2003 01:48 UTC

Nothing is ever going to happen to MS if they are allowed to just keep buying their way out of trouble. If all these people sueing MS just keep taking the payoffs, nothing is ever going to change.

What is the lesson we can all learn from this, kids? You can get away with anything ... provided you have enough $$.

Re: This kinda sucks.
by Sagres on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:02 UTC

It's not like bill gates pointed a gun at their head and said "settle for $23.5K or die" now is it.

fly on the wall...
by Chris Simmons on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:04 UTC

I would have -loved- to been a fly on the wall at THAT meeting.

How on earth did they come to the conclusion that accepting 23.25 million would be reasonable?

And what about the no repurcussions aspect? I'm truly sick to my stomach about this "settlement". Very disheartening, but in a way, it's a HUGE relief, as now it only strengthens my resolve to see things succeed with the future BeOS in the open source world.

-Chris Simmons,
Avid BeOS User.
The BeOSJournal.

re: beFair
by 2501 on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:08 UTC

linux community has to be careful because MS is behind SCO. lets see what happens. they are laughing in the back.

RE: fly on the wall...
by Eugenia on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:11 UTC

> How on earth did they come to the conclusion that accepting 23.25 million would be reasonable?

Probably they made an estimate how many BeOS copies they would be sold if MS did not lock the OEM bootloaders with their contracts, and they came to the conclusion that they wouldn't make more than that kind of money. Which is kinda reasonable, if you think about it. The BeOS community never had more than 100,000 real users for example (I am not talking about random downloaders of BeOS 5 who don't stay with the platform), and that number was on its hey day, between the R4 and R5 releases.

WinFS
by Rayiner Hashem on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:16 UTC

WinFS isn't actually that innovative. Work on the idea of WinFS begun in 1993, but that was an object oriented DB filesystem that looks nothing at all like the new WinFS, which is merely SQL on top of NTFS.

RE: RE: fly on the wall...
by spiff on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:16 UTC

but... that's only for in the R4 R5 days
with R5 things were really beginning to look good for beos, they had good media opinions, and if they hadn't died, who knows how much money they would be making now...

Eugenia...
by Chris Simmons on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:17 UTC

Umm.. So you're saying that each user of the 100,000 would only spend 23 bucks, total?

I seem to recall that BeOS R5 Pro sold for $79 USD, correct me if I'm wrong.

Not to mention products like GoBE Productive, books, programs, etc.

-Chris Simmons,
Avid BeOS User.
The BeOSJournal.

RE: RE: fly on the wall...
by Eugenia on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:18 UTC

The R5 days had lots of chapskeaters, not buyers. They brought absolutely no revenue, they just downloaded, ran it once, and went away.
I insist, between the R4/R5 days were the golden days of BeOS, for those who remember, the "old ones". ;)

maths
by icari on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:19 UTC

Not to be picky dude but 100,000 x 23 aint 23.5 million ;)

it'd be $235 per user.

RE: RE: fly on the wall...
by spiff on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:20 UTC

yes, but the point is, that if they hadn't died, maybe they could have arrived at a point, where people woul be buying and using their OS now or in the futire

Settling, society
by anon on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:26 UTC

I know its "innocent until proven guilty", but if you were really innocent, why would you settle? Especially considering MS does have enough lawyers to fight off an unjust lawsuit.

Settling for $25 mil is a good deal; in the US, people settle even when innocent in order not to pay more in legal fees. Inevitable legal costs incidentally is one of the big reasons they didn't want to pay dividends, iirc.

However, it's horrible MSFT gets to tie distributors up like that. Obviously few of us are lawyers, but this doesn't sound good for society.

I could rant for hours...
by Jace on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:26 UTC

but to spare you all, I will just say that this is extremely dissatisfying and disheartening.. both about the past and as a foreshadow of the future of this repellent industry.

icari ;) heh.
by Chris Simmons on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:29 UTC

err.. right. ;)

My bad. Still... That's slightly more expensive than the cost of a new version of the latest M$ OS, is it not?

I -know- that I've spent far more than that on BeOS related merchandise, and besides, we're talking about potentials here, as Eugenia points out.

The potential market for BeOS was FAR greater than 100 thousand people. Lest we forget about the 1 million plus who downloaded BeOS R5 Personal Edition in the very first month alone?

I say again, 23 million is chump change.

-Chris Simmons,
Avid BeOS User.
The BeOSJournal.

Even THIS is propaganda for MS!!!
by Jace on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:35 UTC

At the end of the "useful information" part of that article, there's this:

"Founded in 1975, Microsoft is the worldwide leader in software, services and Internet technologies for personal and business computing. The company offers a wide range of products and services designed to empower people through great software -- any time, any place and on any device. "

It then goes on to tell you about MS's copyrights and how to get more information about them. I know it is common to have blurbs about businesses in these articles, but this is too much... and there's no explanation about what Be Inc. is/was.

Can someone point us to articles that don't seem to fall right off of the "MS marketing and law" department? I'm curious to see how it is reported elsewhere.

RE:icari ;) heh.
by Eugenia on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:48 UTC

> My bad. Still... That's slightly more expensive than the cost of a new version of the latest M$ OS, is it not?

So what? The BeOS price was not this though. $235 is A LOT. Plus, Be was only getting about $10 bucks of each copy they were selling!

> The potential market for BeOS was FAR greater than 100 thousand people. Lest we forget about the 1 million plus who downloaded BeOS R5 Personal Edition in the very first month alone?

This is why MS paid $235 per user and not $50. They paid for about 2,3 million users if you think that Be was only getting a few bucks per copy sold! And Be could never have 2.3 million users, even Red Hat today doesn't have more than 2 millions. The MacOSX community after 3 whole years got to 6 millions.

>I say again, 23 million is chump change.

I don't think so. It SOUNDS small, but you have an idea about Be that might not be real: Be was small, its market was really small. I believe that the money paid was right. Be thinks of this too, otherwise they would not have agreed.

> Can someone point us to articles that don't seem to fall right off of the "MS marketing and law" department?

What are you talking about Jace? EACH and every press release has a special section "About the Company", where it is the same copy of text everytime, no matter what was announced. That kind of copy is part of each press release, on all companies, not just MS.

RE:icari ;) heh.
by Eugenia on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:51 UTC

To explain myself a bit more, it is NOT the amount of money paid that bothers me, it is the fact that Microsoft got unpunished! This is what really bothers me: "admits no wrongdoing".

Trust me, the money paid were right for what Be lost. It is a fair amount as I explain above.
But that money is NOT enough to let MS "admit no wrondoing". Because they DID do wrong.

wrongdoing
by Chris Simmons on Sat 6th Sep 2003 02:55 UTC

I heartily agree with Eugenia (wow.. twice in one day. ;) about the wrongdoing part.

Microsoft was wrong. Everyone knows this, but yet they are not punished. Why?

-Chris Simmons,
Avid BeOS User.
The BeOSJournal.

Reply to Eugenia
by Jace on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:09 UTC

I know all articles have these blurbs, I said as much.

I said: I know it is common to have blurbs about businesses in these articles, but this is too much... and there's no explanation about what Be Inc. is/was.

It isn't the presense of the blurb itself. The style, extent of it and the total lack of info about Be. The Microsoft info is almost longer than the story.

Hrm...
by Kyle J Cardoza on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:11 UTC

Umm... isn't $23Million more than Be, inc. ever had? I think it is... But I'm not sure... If someone corrects me on that, I'll accept it.

So... What happens to all this cash? Does it go to the shareholders? Is there going to be some kind of ressurection? (I'd like to see that, but I can't see it happening. *cries*)Does it end up in someone's pocket?

RE: Hrm...
by Eugenia on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:12 UTC

Did you not read all the story? Yes, it goes to shareholders, after the lawyers are paid.

RE: winfs
by iodine on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:13 UTC

NULL wrote:

Eugenia wrote:
"WinFS is in development since 1993, it has nothing to do with BFS. Please don't speculate whatever you want."

It seems a bit far-fetched, I daresay (Wouldn't it have been released by this point?). Then again, I know not how long it takes to design & implement a good file system from the ground up. Do you by any chance have the source which states WinFS begun in 1993?

-----------------

I can confirm that this project was started then.

There are three options...
by obelix on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:14 UTC

Be stockholders, who aren't anything like microsoft people, may have three choices at their disposal. They cash out, in which case, they make an embarassingly low amount of money, they tell Be's lawyers not to take this settlement, or they don't cash out, in which case, be can return to some semblance of operations, which is why you'd even want to sue MSFT anyhow, for disruption of operations.

I am recommending the last option, because, I don't believe Be Stockholders want to do worse damage than microsoft could have ever hoped to do. Some say that doesn't make sense- It makes perfect sense. If Be went back in business, and things worked out right(like the would have if msft would have stayed away from be's deals and operations), then some people would be concievably cashing dividends instead of cashing out. Be had a lot of good deals that were disrupted. They were a good company. "Focus shift" pundits can go chew on a BONE. Some believe that them vanishing is reality, I say "reality is what you make of it". and be would vanish only if YOU made it so.

I hope a shareholder's meeting can be called to discuss all of this. I also hope the shareholders will remember IBM, during the great depression. I hope they will make the good choice. There is only one good choice. The other two don't look too yummy.

Everybody does it.
by sam on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:18 UTC

>>>To explain myself a bit more, it is NOT the amount of money paid that bothers me, it is the fact that Microsoft got unpunished! This is what really bothers me: "admits no wrongdoing".

It pales in comparison with all the wall street firms paid hundreds of millions of dollars to New York state and the SEC and "admits no wrongdoing" in CRIMINAL TRIALS in the Enron and WorldCom fiasco.

Everybody does it -- negotiate a settlement and admit no wrongdoing.

Too late now
by Steve W on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:20 UTC

Just my luck. I owned stock in Be until a year ago.

No more shareholders vote
by sam on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:26 UTC

>>>Be stockholders, who aren't anything like microsoft people, may have three choices at their disposal.

The shareholders don't have any choice to the matter. The lawyers don't represent the shareholders, only the company itself. It's a mediated settlement, not under duress (ie. Be Inc. already died, you can't make it "more dead").

Having another shareholders vote --- only adds to expense, thus lowering the amount shareholders get back. The ONLY way that shareholders can do --- is to sue Be Inc. (and its directors and the lone CEO) that the settlement is not in the best interest of the shareholders. But as long as Be Inc. can show that the settlement is a "reasonable" one --- you lose the lawsuit.

I should add...
by obelix on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:30 UTC

The third choice doesn't affect whether be can litigate in other nations where they conducted business operations.

there is a lot of things I hope people will think about. I hope people will make the right decision.


And furthermore, MSFT can say they had no wrong doing all they want to, if Be accepts the deal, you and I know better and that's good enough. MSFT would be stupid to try it again against Be as well, as the deal cannot stop Be from suing if msft tries it again.


Anyhow, I wish everyone the best of luck, and hope they make the right decision.

v in other news...
by bagdad bob on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:32 UTC
No more shareholders vote
by sam on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:32 UTC

>>>they tell Be's lawyers not to take this settlement, or they don't cash out, in which case, be can return to some semblance of operations, which is why you'd even want to sue MSFT anyhow, for disruption of operations.

This is even more absurd. If Be don't settle, then the lawyers leave (they don't get paid because of contingency fees) and the lawyers ain't going to bankroll the costly lawsuit against to the end.

Cash out --- what cash out. Be Inc. has $4 million left. They can't even buy back BeOS from Palm.

I think if you took the cash out, you might actually truly kill it. Ah.. now you see.

Or do you?

contingency fee --- a US thing
by sam on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:35 UTC

>>>The third choice doesn't affect whether be can litigate in other nations where they conducted business operations.

Pretty much only the US where lawyers are working on a contingency fee basis. Therefore, you have to finance the lawsuit itself.

4 million more than 0
by obelix on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:36 UTC

Sam,

I trust you don't really understand this, because you're superimposing figures around like an enron cpa..

I'm stating the truth. 23+4 million = ?

Not to mention, if they choose to stay in, which they can do(shareholders can do this), they can make more potientially than they have ever made. This time, with no MSFT to take their money away.

What, do you think the be shareholders took msft to court?

NO. What guides your premise. You should know mine is plainly obvious.

besides...
by obelix on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:39 UTC

Sam, you don't use beos. Too bad, you're missing out on something cool.

No.. you don't use beos. But you can...

You question whether you can make it more dead...
by sam on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:39 UTC

There is no one working at Be Inc. anymore. The only guy is the CEO (I think an accountant by profession), never actually ran anything his whole life.

All the other people have gone to better things. What --- you expect that JLG will come back and work for free like Steve Jobs did for Apple?

> The only guy is the CEO (I think an accountant by profession)

He is a actually the Be laywer.

>you expect that JLG will come back and work for free like Steve Jobs did for Apple?

I suggest you read this: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3203

You question whether you can make it more dead...
by sam on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:45 UTC

>>>I'm stating the truth. 23+4 million = ?

I didn't read your 3 choices carefully, but I understand it now.

>>>Not to mention, if they choose to stay in, which they can do(shareholders can do this), they can make more potientially than they have ever made.

Again, the shareholders has NO CHOICE. The majority of the shareholders voted to dissolve the company. That's it, end of story.

As I said it, the only way that you can have a choice is for the Be Inc. shareholders to sue Be Inc. and say that the settlement is not in the best interest of the shareholders (not as you stated Be shareholders suing MSFT). Again as long as Be Inc. can show that this settlement is a MEDIATED settlement and that the settlement is REASONABLE --- you don't have a case.

No Wrongdoing?
by Nail Ash on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:47 UTC

Sooner or later we have to hope that enough people decide they won't do business with such an patently unethical company such as Micros**t - until then... Now, to you who still use their products, far be it for me to dictate what you do with your hard earned cash, just please allow a simple observation; As long as ms is funded they will continue to crush everyone who stands in their way. Also, I am also not sure I have it all straight: I keep hearing people; "Micros**t this Microsh**t that" while a windows machine sits on their desk. ?? This year I have decided that I will not continue to fund them. Not a penny. I have purged my computer of anything to do with ms and am happily living a life free from the virus infested windows world.

Learjets
by sam on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:47 UTC

>>>Steve Jobs

I know about the learjets. I am just illustrating that Be Inc. doesn't have a learjet to convince JLG to forego his current job which pays real money and real stock options to come back to Be.

RE: Learjets
by Eugenia on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:49 UTC

There is no "Be" anymore. Be owns nothing, except that money. They have no technologies or engineers. It is all sold. There is no reason for anyone to come back, especially JLG. JLG has another job anyway.

Re: Learjets
by Kyle J Cardoza on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:52 UTC

You're right, and that's the saddest part of this whole thing.

The money won't go to anything worthwhile. It'll just end up split up into a bunch of private bank accounts.

This sucks.

Sam..
by obelix on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:52 UTC

They can show all they want it's a reasonable settlement. The shareholders(some of which I know) don't have to accept it, based on any number of premises. Most who invested in Be, liked Be and were loyal investors. You don't find that sort of rarity often but it's good to have. It's a good thing <tm>.

If the shareholders voted to do A, they can vote to do B.

Congress does it all the time for much less nobler purposes.

I entreat you to bear that in mind.

No Wrongdoing...
by sam on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:53 UTC

You people can't have it both ways.

Microsoft is the devil because it was found guilty of US anti-trust law. All the anti-MSFT camp like SUN and Oracle are saints because they weren't found guilty of anti-trust laws.

What about SUN, IBM, HP, Oracle..... that settled criminal and civil lawsuits and claim no wrongdoing (like Oracle's mess in California last year).

There EVERYBODY are the devil, not just Microsoft. You can't have it both ways.

Vote B.. hahaha
by obelix on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:54 UTC

Yeah, I just got that.. vote "Be"

they already voted to dissolve the company
by sam on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:55 UTC

>>>The shareholders(some of which I know) don't have to accept it, based on any number of premises.

It doesn't matter. The shareholders voted by a majority to dissolve the company. There is NO SECOND VOTE.

Sam...
by obelix on Sat 6th Sep 2003 03:55 UTC

...that they(MSFT) ADMIT no wrongdoing


we know different.

of course,
by obelix on Sat 6th Sep 2003 04:05 UTC

the 4+23 million is after attorney's fees, paid in full OF COURSE.

Some see this as final defeat. I see it as a chance to enjoy a small victory, channel this.. and make a bigger one later on.

I would use the protection blanket this affords us. anyhow, there's not much more for me to say or explain. this is really good if we make it good.

Let's make it good.

Be hasn't issued press release yet
by sam on Sat 6th Sep 2003 04:17 UTC

>>>The Microsoft press release went live after the stock market closed and to ensure smaller traffic (weekends are pretty slower traffic-wise for all tech news sites).

That's not fair to Microsoft. Be hasn't issued a press release yet (unless that is a joint press release).

The negotiation could have gone overtime --- that's why the late release. Also most company issue stuff after the trading day because of various SEC regulations (unless you want to halt the trading in the middle of the day).

RE: Be hasn't issued press release yet
by Eugenia on Sat 6th Sep 2003 04:22 UTC

It is a joint press release, and I am sure it was not Be the one who would have liked to publish that on Friday evening. ;)

Hooray, I finally get some chump change
by Andrew "Skippy" Martens on Sat 6th Sep 2003 04:24 UTC

Well, after a long time waiting, I should be getting a small portion of the money back that I had in shares of Be. Not that I expected to actually get anything, since MS probably could've just kept things on trial and appealed them until Be ran out of money to pay its lawyers (as you recall, they had what, $3.5 million or so left?).

This $23m will help appease the shareholders and venture capitalists, etc. who put money towards Be. It's sad, yes, but Be tried to do something really cool, and got blasted out of the water by a monopolistic competitor. It happens.

Fortunately it sounds like all of Be's engineers are off doing exciting things, which is a good thing - now they can be putting their experience and creativity towards making a bunch of other software products better.

Alas, all good things must come to an end. Be, we hardly knew ye.

WHAT ???
by mmu_man on Sat 6th Sep 2003 04:27 UTC

All this BS only to get there ?

/me really ashamed.

re: winfs
by DCMonkey on Sat 6th Sep 2003 04:29 UTC

Here's another book for y'all

http://www.ercb.com/brief/brief.0011.html (sorry, couldn't find it at Amazon). This book is about the development of Windows NT

Here we go:

In this book, they talk about the development of NTFS. Around February 1991, the book says Jim Allchin came around to the NT team and asked them to axe the NTFS as they were working on this grand new system codenamed Cairo that would include its own file system that sounds by all accounts very much like the FSen were are talking about today.

Jim Allchin joined MS in 1990. Allow me to quote from his MS BIO:
Before joining Microsoft, Allchin helped start Banyan Systems Inc., where he was the principal architect of the VINES distributed network operating system. He spent more than seven years at Banyan, holding numerous executive management positions in development and marketing. Ultimately, he became senior vice president and chief technology officer.

While completing his doctorate in computer science in the early 1980s, Allchin was the principal architect of the Clouds distributed transactional, object-oriented operating system. Before that, he helped develop the DX series of operating systems for Texas Instruments Inc.

-- ( http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/jim/default.asp )

I'll bet the inspiration for Cairo, including a DB like file system came from his experience working on (even if only at a managerial level) those projects. Part of it also comes from Bill Gates' "Information at your fingertips" kick he was on at the time. I'm sure there was research at some university or another that influenced both of them as well, but Be?

Be was founded in 1990. BeOS was released 1995. Jim Allchin joined MS in 1990. Who knows how far they got with Cairo before they had to slap something together to ship as NT 4.0. I'm sure they at least now know what not to do.

Jim Allchin now heads the OS platforms division at MS.
Are you all so sure they will fail this time?

Make of this info what you will, but I don't see a "MS ripped off WinFS from BeOS" story here.


PS: That stuff about Allchin's experience with distributed OO OSen reminds me. Longhorn isn't supposed to be just a desktop OS. There is a Longhorn server planned too IIRC. Ya think maybe this WinFS query stuff will work across the network, distributed as it were?

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if a future Longhorn based Exchange server does nothing more than send outgoing mail and deposit incoming mail in the proper WinFS folders and update the appropriate attributes (sounds like your typical UNIX MUA doesn't it?).

RE: Be hasn't issued press release yet
by sam on Sat 6th Sep 2003 04:30 UTC

>>>It is a joint press release, and I am sure it was not Be the one who would have liked to publish that on Friday evening. ;)

Not necessarily. I think it's the only way around. The settlement is not a big news for Microsoft (in terms of dollar amount) that they can release the press release mid-day without halting the stock trading.

However, it is big news for Be Inc. and that requires the halting of Be Inc. stock trade (even in the pink sheet market). Be is a one person company and Be's lawyers who negotiated this deal ain't securities lawyers (neither is the lone lawyer who works at Be.) So unless they want to spend an extra money and clear it with a securities lawyer in order to issue the press release mid-day --- Be would want to issue after the trading bell.

RE: Be hasn't issued press release yet
by sam on Sat 6th Sep 2003 04:44 UTC

I meant it's the OTHER way around.

re:
by anonymouse on Sat 6th Sep 2003 04:54 UTC

It's a good thing the market will destory MS with free software.
I certainly hope not. Almost every free piece of software is crap. Only exceptions are probably those sql servers, apache, and kde. The rest are crap.

I want more !
by justme on Sat 6th Sep 2003 04:54 UTC

I believe this is still quite important, now all the other anti-ms os developers can do the same.

Be chose early on not to be
by Reality Check on Sat 6th Sep 2003 04:59 UTC

Be was a collection of dreamers and crazies. They never made a fully fleshed out and debugged OS, never made or did anything substantial that supported ISVs, and never seriously understood what it took to make a commercial product.

Any company that chose PowerPC over x86 for a mainstream OS shows that they have incredible brain damage. In all likelihood just that one mistake killed the company. Too much energy in the wrong direction sucks the life out of a company.

It's too bad Be never had a good biz guy running the show. They could have been something then. A lot of talent and energy went down the drain.

And the fate of Be had little to do with Microsoft. Witness the chump change settlement. Be had no case.

Soon we will be talking about Amiga dying the final death. And in not too long, Apple. Evolution takes a while, but it always works. The smart live and the stupid die. Thank God.

Time 'n Place
by CooCooCaChoo on Sat 6th Sep 2003 05:17 UTC

BeOS had its time and place, too bad that they didn't do something about the basic fundamental flaws in the system, namely, a lack of ISV's and IHV's.

Although it sounds a little optimistic, it would be nice if the current owners of Be's intellectual property opensourced and licensed it under the BSD license.

what job does JLG now have?
by Anonymous on Sat 6th Sep 2003 05:18 UTC

quote "JLG has another job anyway." what is it? any links?

personally i would never invest in a JLG run company.

Apple offered JLG and be inc $120+ million and JLG/be inc said no. JLG should have foreseen that steve jobs/next was a logical alternative, which is what happened.

tsk-tsk

r.i.p.
by Shaggy on Sat 6th Sep 2003 05:26 UTC

good-bye, Be inc.
it was nice knowing you.

.m

Be, Inc, BeOS, and revenue
by Rob on Sat 6th Sep 2003 05:32 UTC

Well, I know that when Be released the BeOS 5 PE many people used that, and the workarounds to get it running on its own partition. However, I don't think that all were "cheapskates" as some would have you believe.

I may not have bought a lot of software, and do admit to running some applications with "questionable" sources, but all my BeOS software was purchased. BeOS 5 Professional Edition, Gobe Productive 2.0, Sound Play (still the best audio player ever), Groove Maker (full boxed set), gobeProductive 3.0 (just to support the awesome Gobe guys), as well as Scot Hacker's BeOS Bible, and DPS's wonderful Programming the Be Operating System. (Hell, I even spent close to $600 for a rev 6 BeBox with every version of BeOS from DP8-r4.5.)

Some of us truly loved the BeOS, and felt that it deserved the full respect that it was never truly given. I just kinda feel hurt being considered a cheapskate.

-- Rob

It's great -- I suppose -- that O'Reilly is releasing DPS' Programming ... as a PDF, as it will let people see just how great the BeAPI really was. He has a great style of writing. His Programming MacOS X is a great text, too.

How to spend my settlement proceeds...
by Rude Turnip on Sat 6th Sep 2003 05:57 UTC

Based upon the settlement plus Be's cash balance and the recent number of shares outstanding on the Company's 10-Q filing, I'll be getting a little over $200! What's the most poetically fitting way to spend the proceeds from this lawsuit?

Question... from a (small) Be shareholder...
by Ralf. on Sat 6th Sep 2003 06:08 UTC

does anybody know how the money will be distributed?
Will every shreholder payed automatically or only by request?

Comments
by genaldar on Sat 6th Sep 2003 06:19 UTC

Companies settle frivilous law suits all the time, especially in cases like this. Any idea why? It's cheaper. If ms continued to fight it and won who would reimburse them for the cost? A company that only continues to exist on paper to continue the lawsuit? Ms saw a cheap out and took it. It's good business, not an admission of guilt. But hey if you don't believe start even a small business and get sued by someone who is broke.

I call this a frivilous suit because ms contracts with oems have not been shown to violate any federal or international laws. Thats right none, zip, zero zilch. They were heavy handed and unfair to competitors but they benefitted both parties. Oems got windows for less than they would've otherwise paid, making them extra profits. Ms secured their continued dominance. Contined because if you aren't the lead dog you couldn't get oems to sign contracts like these.

Settlement May be deceiving
by Dwight on Sat 6th Sep 2003 06:21 UTC

Microsoft's settlement with Be Inc. may be deceiving. Certain parts of the agreement is being kept under wraps.

In Microsoft's Caldera settlement, Microsoft seem to be saying Caldera would recieve about 150 million, by stating they would take a 3 cents per share charge on the earnings, for the quarter. The actual amount seems to have been between 250-400 million. Caldera was not publically owned, so it is impossible to get an accurate total.

Now, what else that might be worth some bucks, such as possible Microsoft buying dollar for dollar Be's tax losses is unknown. If you own any Be shares, and it climbs to above the per share "known" amounts, then maybe you had better hold on and not sell, to find out more.

Be had, according to their last statement, 8.6 milion is assets. This was a big case, with triple damages on a win in court. Be was, at one point, valued at over 1 billion dollars, by the market. A minimum of 3 billion (1 billion tripled) for Be was a minimum it seems they would have gotten, with a win in court. To settle, for around 25 million would seem ridiculas imho. Be's case against Microsoft was as solid as they come. Trial was to start soon, or before Feb 2004. The trial would have only been a matter of weeks. Something seems to not be right here, and I think it is in the secret terms of the deal.

I also think Judge Mota has to OK the deal, and he may reject it, if he feels Microsoft is getting off too easily. Motz has done this before, on other Microsoft cases.

For Be shareholders, we can be found here, for future info--Dwight

http://messages.yahoo.com/?action=q&board=beos

On a copy of Windows XP! You should be proud to support such a great American company!

conspiracies theories
by sam on Sat 6th Sep 2003 06:33 UTC

>>>Microsoft's settlement with Be Inc. may be deceiving. Certain parts of the agreement is being kept under wraps.

It's not like Caldera --- Be Inc. is being liquidated. How are they going to hide the money?

>>>I also think Judge Mota has to OK the deal, and he may reject it, if he feels Microsoft is getting off too easily.

According to the press release, it's a MEDIATED settlement (i.e. by a 3rd party mediator). It is highly unlikely that Motz would reject it.

Solid as they come?
by genaldar on Sat 6th Sep 2003 06:37 UTC

"Be's case against Microsoft was as solid as they come. Trial was to start soon, or before Feb 2004."

How was it solid? No laws were broken. Was it unfair. Hell yes. But unfair doesn't win a lawsuit. The mistake people are making is they keep thinking of the government's case against ms as all encompassing. It's not. It covered only using their os market share to move into other products. Period. That's why middleware is an issue. If it was all encompassing then the break up would've stuck. It didn't, but not because ms bought their way out of trouble. It didn't stick because it went over and above what was acceptable punishment. It would be akin to taking everything you own if you get caught stealing a tv. I understand many of you were/are be fans but think about the law. Not about feelings. Not about individual abstracts of what is justice. But about the law, justice as defined by society.

btw it sickens me that people whine this much about a damned os dying when there are bigger problems in the world. According to national geographic magazine there are more human slaves then there have ever been. But god forbid you people care about that. You're too busy whining about a 23 million dollar windfall.

wrongdoing
by TC on Sat 6th Sep 2003 07:01 UTC

MS will never admit wrongdoing. That statement can possibly cost them billions. Anyway, wasn't BeOS shunned by Apple? I always assumed that Be, Inc. had an uphill battle after that fiasco.

$23 million for committing suicide = Be got a good deal
by Sherlock on Sat 6th Sep 2003 07:17 UTC

If I were a VC at Be, I'd be happy to get $23 mils before plunking ten million down for starters into an anti-trust lawsuit. Because Microsoft put in the fix, Be would lose the anti-trust suit anyway.

It's disgusting that Be blamed their troubles on Microsoft in the first place. "We made a lot of stupid decisions... well, we better sue Microsoft."

Can you imagine it, an Intel-funded company suing Microsoft? Be just pissed all their funding down the damn drain doing retarded stuff, that's the real problem.

At the end of the story, Be bled Microsoft for chump change and is dead and gone.

And all I can say is good riddance! And now the Be-fanatical people can rest in peace!

RE: Solid as they come?
by Dwight on Sat 6th Sep 2003 07:31 UTC

>>>It's not like Caldera --- Be Inc. is being liquidated. How >>>are they going to hide the money?

They can't totally hide the money like Caldera, but Microsoft hides negative reality, as much as possible. Take for instance their quarterly reporting. In the last year, Microsoft admitted to cooking the books some. They would not report all the profit in a quarter, so they could add the profit into down months, and make the profits look solid quarter after quarter. Microsoft is very sensitive on preception, and trys to manipulate it as much as possible. The settlement had to be announced, and the way they did it was that the stockholders would get so much in cash. Now isn't that a little strange. Why not give a total for the deal. Because the total implies more, and maybe much more. Right now the public says, yea, Microsoft didn't give them much, and it was just to get rid of the suit. Microsoft would die, if they had to announce they gave major consessions to Be Inc, which they possibly did, if it is not announced as part of the deal. Sure Be Inc. shareholders, and the public looking at Be's SEC filings will probably know the basic deal, but not Joe Average on the street. In this regard, it is like Caldera, except Caldera had no SEC filings.

>>>According to the press release, it's a MEDIATED >>>settlement (i.e. by a 3rd party mediator). It is highly >>>unlikely that Motz would reject it.

Motz has rejected such deals, in the last year, between other parties and Microsoft, and they were probably negotiated in the same way. Motz's duty is to the law, and what he percieves as the public good. Microsoft is a convicted monpolist, and Motz will not let Microsoft take advantage of a deal, to further Microsoft's monopoly, if he sees it, to be that way.--Dwight

RE: As Solid As They Come
by Dwight on Sat 6th Sep 2003 07:55 UTC

"How was it solid? No laws were broken. Was it unfair. Hell yes. But unfair doesn't win a lawsuit. The mistake people are making is they keep thinking of the government's case against ms as all encompassing. It's not. It covered only using their os market share to move into other products. Period. That's why middleware is an issue. If it was all encompassing then the break up would've stuck. It didn't, but not because ms bought their way out of trouble. It didn't stick because it went over and above what was acceptable punishment. It would be akin to taking everything you own if you get caught stealing a tv. I understand many of you were/are be fans but think about the law. Not about feelings. Not about individual abstracts of what is justice. But about the law, justice as defined by society."

How solid was it. Awfully solid. They had 390+ findings of fact they could use, as fact against Microsoft, without having to prove them.

Point 1...Microsoft holds monopoly power on the Intel PC.

Point 2...Microsoft has used it's Monopoly power to illegally maintain its monopoly and block competitors.

Point 3...Microsoft OEM contract were monopolistic (illegal), and were designed to block competitors.

Point 4...The Windows computer is the only economically viable method of entering the Intel PC market.

Point 5...Microsoft used it's illegal OEM contrats to block BeOS from the OEM Windows computers of Gateway, Compaq. and Hitachi. They even went so far as threatening to yank their Windows licensing, from these companies.

Point 6... Microsoft under oath stated that, if BeOS was allowed on the Windows computers, in dual boot mode, that "AND WHEN ENOUGH APPLICATIONS ARE OVER THERE TO SATISFY THE USER IN QUESTION, HE HAS NO FURTHER USE FOR WINDOWS"
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/transcripts/jan99/01-27-pm...

"btw it sickens me that people whine this much about a damned os dying when there are bigger problems in the world. According to national geographic magazine there are more human slaves then there have ever been. But god forbid you people care about that. You're too busy whining about a 23 million dollar windfall."

This is about honor, freedom and corruption. The money is not the issue--Dwight

How to keep yourself out of jail
by Me on Sat 6th Sep 2003 08:21 UTC

Be honest OR be rich.

What about the Stock Jump a while back??
by mikesum32 on Sat 6th Sep 2003 09:38 UTC

Someone knew this was going to happen? Why else for the stock doubling before?

What to do
by Piers on Sat 6th Sep 2003 09:49 UTC

Scr#w Be Inc. and Scr#w Microsoft. I bloody hate them both but I loved BeOS. Made such a refreshing change for a computing environment. Oh well eventually OpenBeOS will be done and after that Zeta (-;

No..
by obelix on Sat 6th Sep 2003 10:45 UTC

I gave out the options here... there were three. Only one is going to be right, and one is indeed dead wrong.

and that's cashing out and running for it...

That was the deal. NO funny business.

However, Microsoft can't do this again. Sure, be can go after triple damages of 3 billion. In court. And they would win.

I know it seems like a meager amount. I say either reject the offer, and nail them to the wall in court, or, take the 23 mil and recommence operations.

Appearantly MSFT really wants this not to go to court, so why the low amount, comparitivly speaking? No, if they want to settle, they can settle for more than that. If they don't want this going to court, I suggest they suck up their pride a bit...

and...
by obelix on Sat 6th Sep 2003 10:48 UTC

Stop thinking we're dumb enough to accept their pathetic offer.

23 mil?

bill wants this out of court?

PAY.. grrrrrrr..

Choose to settle for 3bn or more.
by obelix on Sat 6th Sep 2003 10:51 UTC

They act like we would just take that and go it?


Pay, BILL, or we'll turn your company upside down.


The art of the deal, don't offer too low, or too high.

23 million is just begging to be sued into oblivion.

hhhaaaaa
by obelix on Sat 6th Sep 2003 11:07 UTC

Do they really wanna keep it out of court? Well, 23 million sure don't reflect that...


*ahem*

Hey, waggener!
by obelix on Sat 6th Sep 2003 11:16 UTC

Wag this!

23 million? Hey, I got a strategic PUBLIC communication for you, UP
YOURS!!!!


I'm announcing the deal has been rejected. Forthwit. I'm also announcing that if Waggener Edstrom continues, they'll be arrested for insider trading.

Yeah, just whet our appetite just a little more..


You're thinking long term? Well, you better start packing your lunches, because after we done with you, there won't be any of micro-soft's money to buy you fancy dinners with.

I can't believe you people stand for this, it's lock and load time.

sad day
by joe on Sat 6th Sep 2003 11:47 UTC

There is no BeOS. They had to 'focus shift' to find money largely because of Microsoft's practices.

Again, there is no REAL alternative to Windows, IMO.
This is justice?

$23,250,000 USD
by hgm on Sat 6th Sep 2003 12:41 UTC

Peanuts imho

What would be sweet...
by Adam Scheinberg on Sat 6th Sep 2003 12:51 UTC

would be if they spent first 2 million to buy the BeOS back from Palm, the next few million havbing programmer sanitize it of third party code and proprietary goods, and then open sourced the remainder - whatever is left, and THEN distributed the rest to shareholders. THAT, my friends, would be a much worse outcome for Microsoft. Even if only a little, there would be parts of the BeOS that would advance OpenBeOS and B.E.OS.

Slap on the wrist
by ryan on Sat 6th Sep 2003 14:04 UTC

look the bottom line here is clear. It pays to run a dirty business. The penalty ($23 million) is nothing. I reject the notion that be would have only had 100,000 users. If beos came preinstalled that number could have gone up a bit higher. The entire thing could have grown.

Bascially, it pays to be a crook and that is a sad statement.

insanity continues
by sam on Sat 6th Sep 2003 15:33 UTC

>>>Why not give a total for the deal.

You don't understand how the world works. It's not Microsoft that is not giving the total figure out. It's Be's lawyers that wanted the figure to be hidden. It's Be's lawyers that draft the joint press release. It's Be's lawyers that negotiated the settlement. (When Microsoft announced that they settled with AOL for $750 million, the price of Microsoft shares actually rised.)

>>>Motz's duty is to the law, and what he percieves as the public good.

Motz rejected the settlement of the 100 private class-action lawsuits ---- because it's full of funny numbers on how many schools get how many used computers with microsoft software (and Apple complaining didn't hurt either). In the Be settlement, it's pure cash settlement mediated by a third party mediator, very different.

>>>I say either reject the offer, and nail them to the wall in court, or, take the 23 mil and recommence operations.

For the nth time, you don't get to reject the offer. The lawyers work for the company, not you.

Gobe
by Leukos on Sat 6th Sep 2003 15:42 UTC

Someone mentioned Gobe. What happened to them. They were about to release a Linux version. I tried the Windows one and liked it...I like OpenOffice too, but it's yet too bloated, too heavy to start...

Gobe Inc.
by Galley on Sat 6th Sep 2003 15:50 UTC

A new version of gobeProductive (3.04) is supposedly going to be released very soon. Gobe Inc. no longer supports BeOS.

Be killed itself
by MoronPeeCeeUSR on Sat 6th Sep 2003 16:31 UTC


Be's CEO was an egomaniac and an idiot.

This was a money grab by a bunch of pissed off investors who lost their asses on a mismanaged company.

I was impressed with BeOS but not Be Inc.

A company that loses a couple hundred million dollars and never shows a profit isn't anything to feel bad about.

$23 million as good as nothing
by ryan on Sat 6th Sep 2003 18:27 UTC

Look BE should have continued to fight. 23 million dollars distributed out to all of the shareholders is only a tiny bit better than 0 dollars spread out amongst the shareholders.

In this settlement the share holders still lose. I don't know the situation with the judge or be's ability to keep on fighting but the company should have continued to fight because as it is it got nothing so it really had nothing to lose. This baby should have gone to trial.

Re:No Wrongdoing?
by mark on Sat 6th Sep 2003 19:00 UTC

"I keep hearing people; "Micros**t this Microsh**t that" while a windows machine sits on their desk. ??"

Because there isn't a great deal in the way of alternatives. For example, one can't go out and buy a BeOS PC. That's the whole point of this article!

DONATE FUNDS
by ryan on Sat 6th Sep 2003 20:08 UTC

when you break this down to $/share you are left with damn close to nothing and MS has hardly suffered. I therefore encourage be's shareholders to do some good with this and donate it to OBOS or yellowtab.

Be was a pitiful creature compared to Amiga
by Sherlock on Sat 6th Sep 2003 21:47 UTC

Be never offered the computing world anything compelling. A little bit faster multitasking is not a breakthrough.

Amiga had great multimedia years before Be. Truly futuristic stuff. And many people bought Amiga. Be never offered one compelling capability or application. It says a lot about what Be people did day in and day out -- nothing.

It is good that Be is going because the whole thing was hype. There was no Be operating system, just some lame ass demoware that they put out that didn't even work on most systems.

If I were a Be shareholder, I'd be overjoyed to get my money out of there. $23 mil is a small fraction of the total investment in Be, but it's better than a big fat zero.

Gassee and the rest of Be management should be sued for stealing the rest of the money.

The fact of the matter is that Be was a lifestyle company. They never intended to make anything that they could sell. Their product was hype.

Be was a pitiful creature compared to Amiga
by sam on Sat 6th Sep 2003 22:21 UTC

>>>Amiga had great multimedia years before Be. Truly futuristic stuff.

And of course, QNX pre-dated Amiga with even more futuristic stuff. By the time Amiga was founded in the mid-80's, QNX already got out of the desktop market. For those who don't know --- QNX 2 (on 80186 "ICON" machines, it's not a typo --- really 186 machines) was used in all high-schools (and some elementary schools) in Ontario, Canada in the early 80's. By the mid 80's, QNX already got out of the desktop market and began designing QNX 4 which was the first QNX OS that was targetted for the embedded market.

BeOS
by Seth on Sun 7th Sep 2003 00:00 UTC

BeOS is dead, it sucked and there isnt a Be Inc. anymore so who cares. BeOS was a terrible OS thats how come it never got into any OEM's, find me a single person using the BeOS these days, If any exist.

What can Be do with 23 million - buy YellowTab!
by anonymouse on Sun 7th Sep 2003 00:42 UTC

Yep. Buy YellowTab and they are back in operation with a few million to continue development and slowly move over to all new code. If YellowTab has a legitimate license to the code then this could happen. Some stockholders would want out but some might want to buy the name and merge with YellowTab and put the MSFT settlement to good use.

Even JLG could probably do this on his own with his share of the money.

In fact PalmSouce might be willing to sell the code back to Be for a few million if Be Computing was resurrected after the settlement.

Hummmm....

I agree with this and i am a shareholder. They'd need a minimalist infrastructure but going further is better than keeping a fraction of a penny on the dollar. That is a better solution both from a $$$ point and as a matter of principal.

RE: BeOS by Seth
by Gein on Sun 7th Sep 2003 01:43 UTC

Wrong there! (you were probably just trolling, I don't know)

A lot of people still use it (I do) even if dual booting and there is a demand to get it back. That's why you see so may comments on BeOS related news and so many different projects to get it back running (OSS or CSS).

Don't like it? Let it be... There's space for everyone.


Gein

Well..
by obelix on Sun 7th Sep 2003 03:15 UTC

I think the investors hold the final say in all of this. 23 million and no company VS 3 bn, a win in court, and restoration of the company is a better option. It's the best option.

Unless msft want's to sweeten the pot a bit, in which case- the investors will have to decide upon the merits of the newer proposed amount.

But, 23 million is disgenuinly trying to stay out of court. MSFT is just hoping be will just go away and vanish.

So, let's not give them what they want. They are the defense in the case, not the dictator of terms.

Furthermore..
by obelix on Sun 7th Sep 2003 03:25 UTC

I'm right. You know I'm right.

I'M DAMN RIGHT.

MSFT is in no position to dictate terms. I know what plans Be had made, because they don't want to jinx a court case when they said that.

But seriously- MSFT is defendant, not dictator.

Using BeOS Daily
by BeOS User 100% on Sun 7th Sep 2003 03:47 UTC

Funny you should say that you doubt there is one user of
BeOS. I use R5.0.3/BONE and Dano along with thousands of apps
available on http://www.bebits.com on 8 machines. 3 dual machine,
2 single proc AMD systems, and 2 macs, and a quad. It is FAST,
it works, I do 100% of my work on it, including...

email
web browsing
selling on FleeBay
Music editing
Image Editing/Cropping
Importing Camera Images
Streaming Audio
Movie and Song Ripping and Compression
Programming (with Be API an a LOT more, Dylan, Perl, Python blah blah)
IRC Chat, IM with Yahoo via gateways.

But most of all I have one thing that M$ users and Mac users don't
have, and that is a system SO UNDER THE RADAR that I never have
virus attacks and companies bothering me with upgrades that
actually destabilize the system more than help it.

I got news, I have never been happier without M$ or Mac, or whatever
OS is next (FreeBSD too)... There are a LOT of users like me, and
of course there are MILLIONS that have to deal with constant CRAP
releases from Apple and M$, security issues, and more as mentioned
above.

RE: Using BeOS Daily
by contrasutra on Sun 7th Sep 2003 04:36 UTC

//
I never have
virus attacks and companies bothering me with upgrades that
actually destabilize the system more than help it.
//

Oh, you're so right. I hope MS, Apple, and Linus take a lesson from BeOS and NEVER RELEASE AN UPDATE AGAIN.

Boy, you got us.

Re: no wrongdoing?
by rajan r on Sun 7th Sep 2003 08:03 UTC

I know its "innocent until proven guilty", but if you were really innocent, why would you settle? Especially considering MS does have enough lawyers to fight off an unjust lawsuit.

It isn't whether Microsoft could loose of not. Microsoft would pay about the same money to Be if they had lost, which is a little less than a pinch to Microsoft. Other restrictions were already in place - stuff like Microsoft can't force the OEM hand by threatening "no more discount".

the big issue here is PR. I doubt this story would even make it to any major newspaper or cable news channel. They probably mention it once, maybe twice, but that's about it. But if Microsoft lost the case, the financial difference ad marketing restrictions would be about the same - but the PR for Microsoft would be terrible.

Public relations. Another reason why this was announce on the weekend.

Oh, check out my blog entry: http://rajanr.com/index.php?itemid=246

I don't see what the big deal is
by arielb on Sun 7th Sep 2003 08:16 UTC

Be Inc for all intents and purposes died when they sold everything to Palm. And BeOS FAIAP died even before that, when Be made the focus shift to BeIA. Indeed the real sign BeOS died when they couldn't get Hitachi to dual boot Windows and BeOS which is of course what this lawsuit was about. Too little...but way too late. But what can you do? Look at everyone else who faced Microsoft on its own turf (Netscape, Lotus, Corel, etc)
BeOS (or BeIA) will have the true revenge in the form of PalmOS 6. Palm is kicking Microsoft already without any Be technology so what happens from now on will be interesting.
And yes I think the future of computing is the PDA. It's the only way you can "compute" and still have a real life.

Re: I don't see what the big deal is
by rajan r on Sun 7th Sep 2003 08:59 UTC

BeOS (or BeIA) will have the true revenge in the form of PalmOS 6. Palm is kicking Microsoft already without any Be technology so what happens from now on will be interesting.

More like the otherway 'round. Microsoft minting profits- Palm into deficits. Microsoft gaining marketshare - Palm loosing them.

RE:
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Sep 2003 09:34 UTC

I believe this is still quite important, now all the other anti-ms os developers can do the same.

Haha. The sad truth spills out. No one likes Linux or Be, everyone just hates Microsoft.

RE:What can Be do with 23 million - buy YellowTab!
by anonymouse on Sun 7th Sep 2003 11:38 UTC

Ryan says:

"I agree with this and i am a shareholder. They'd need a minimalist infrastructure but going further is better than keeping a fraction of a penny on the dollar. That is a better solution both from a $$$ point and as a matter of principal."

I am a shareholder as well and I will be interested to see if someone puts forth such a proposal to the shareholders. Be now has considerably more money than they had before the sale to Palm. Be Computing could buy back the source code from Palm Source for a few million and then maintain a very small infrastructure and license out the code as they see fit to various distributions or simply do their own releases.

This is an important opportunity to consider. Having a product that could grow is a lot more interesting than having .60 a share as I see it.

RE: DONATE FUNDS
by Manuel on Sun 7th Sep 2003 14:40 UTC

Be is currently in the process of completing its dissolution pursuant to the plan approved by Be's stockholders in November 2001. In accordance with that plan and upon completion of its dissolution, Be's net cash will be distributed to shareholders of record as of March 15, 2002, after payment of any taxes, officers' and directors' compensation, and other expenses, and the satisfaction of any and all of Be's remaining liabilities.

Looking at this page on NASDAQ http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?mode=stock&page=multi&symbol=BEO... I can see a share volume of 19'000. Let's assume Be was going to distribute $19'000'000 to theses 19'000 shares, that would be $1'000 per share. Is there anything I didn't get quite right?

re Manuel
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Sep 2003 15:02 UTC

"Be is currently in the process of completing its dissolution pursuant to the plan approved by Be's stockholders in November 2001. In accordance with that plan and upon completion of its dissolution, Be's net cash will be distributed to shareholders of record as of March 15, 2002, after payment of any taxes, officers' and directors' compensation, and other expenses, and the satisfaction of any and all of Be's remaining liabilities."

The operative phrase there is ' "after payment of any taxes, officers' and directors' compensation, and other expenses, and the satisfaction of any and all of Be's remaining liabilities."' I doubt shareholders will see a dime.

re Manuel
by ryan on Sun 7th Sep 2003 16:30 UTC

"The operative phrase there is ' "after payment of any taxes, officers' and directors' compensation, and other expenses, and the satisfaction of any and all of Be's remaining liabilities."' I doubt shareholders will see a dime."

Ouch. I hope you are wrong but i have a feeling you are probably correct.

re: Manuel
by Rude Turnip on Sun 7th Sep 2003 22:56 UTC

"Looking at this page on NASDAQ http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?mode=stock&page=multi&sy... I can see a share volume of 19'000. Let's assume Be was going to distribute $19'000'000 to theses 19'000 shares, that would be $1'000 per share. Is there anything I didn't get quite right? "

That was the trading volume for one day. There are about 38 million shares issued and outstanding. The actual per share distribution to shareholders is about $0.71.

so they basically got away with killing beos
by Eric on Mon 8th Sep 2003 03:55 UTC

Maybe the users of beos should all file a class action lawsuit against ms for killing our OS and user the money to fund the obeos project.

That would be great if...
by obelix on Mon 8th Sep 2003 03:59 UTC

That would be great if the deal was legally valid.

yep, that's what I just said...
by obelix on Mon 8th Sep 2003 04:02 UTC

The deal is LEGALLY INVALID.

It bears to this...
by obelix on Mon 8th Sep 2003 04:06 UTC

They didn't ask the judge to remand to mediation... the parties the lawyers were representing wasn't present.

So, either the story is a LIE, or the deal is invalid anyway.

They still have to go to court, or it's a charge of contempt, because the JUDGE decides this, otherwise, how else could Be more the case if a judge hadn't decided it?

It is so ordered that the community will not accept the validity of this. And, yes, I AM speaking on the behalf of all the various factions in the community at this time.

Final note...
by obelix on Mon 8th Sep 2003 06:45 UTC

Or else I wouldn't waste my time, maybe?

You are only 1/2 right
by sam on Mon 8th Sep 2003 07:11 UTC

>>>Public relations. Another reason why this was announce on the weekend.

You forgot that Microsoft announced that they reached settlement with AOL for 750 million dollars in the daytime in the weekdays. You also forgot that the price of Microsoft stock rose on that day.

Microsoft had PR staff available when they announced the Be settlement on late Friday. Interestingly, Be's lone employee wasn't available for comment on Friday.

It's Be who wanted to announce late Friday. Also if Be announced during trading hours, they would have to halt trading of the Be Inc. shares because it's a big deal for Be. (Microsoft doesn't need to halt trading because the amount of dollars is so small for them.) Halting trading for Be would mean more lawyers and accountants fees --- so they announced after the trading hours were closed.

sorry rajan
by arielb on Mon 8th Sep 2003 10:23 UTC

but palm is gaining marketshare, ppc losing
http://palminfocenter.com/view_story.asp?ID=5811
Palm OS-based PDAs comprised 51.4 percent of worldwide PDA shipments, while Pocket PC PDAs composed 35.9 percent of total units. Palm still sits atop the U.S. PDA market with a 46.7 percent market share, while Sony remained No. 2 with 12.1 percent market share.

Can you imagine if linux or apple had a 50% share of the pc market? Palm has that and more and adding BeOS technology on top is just the icing on the cake

Re: You are only 1/2 right
by rajan r on Mon 8th Sep 2003 10:30 UTC

You forgot that Microsoft announced that they reached settlement with AOL for 750 million dollars in the daytime in the weekdays. You also forgot that the price of Microsoft stock rose on that day.

Netscape got Microsoft is a lot of trouble. And AOL's suit put Microsoft in a lot of PR trouble. Announcing they are out of it was much better for them, PR-wise, than trying to keep it in the back pages. Be's suit does nothing to affect the stock market - the amount they are asking and the amount they would get in the best case senariou is a little more than a pinch to the stockholders.

Also, you mentioned a good point regarding Be. But I thought ever since the Palm buyover, Be was no longer traded.... well never mind.

Being half right is better than nothing, right?

RE:Using BeOS daily
by John Marranca, Jr on Mon 8th Sep 2003 15:22 UTC

I too, use BeOS daily. For all of the reasons that were listed...plus one more: Bill Gates made $0 on my software purchase. In fact...I went so far as to build a FASTER PC just for BeOS.

Pertaining to the comment about "a pc so far under the radar that you are in all practicality...immune to virus attacks"...I AGREE! My wife's new PC has been hit...all of the PCs at work have been hit...but with BeOS I just surf and laugh...and get the work done that needs to be done.

AMEN

John