Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Feb 2010 20:48 UTC
Microsoft Now this is something you don't read every day. Dick Brass, vice president at Microsoft from 1997 to 2004, has written an article for The New York Times' Op-Ed section, detailing the flaws in Microsoft's corporate culture, and how they've severely affected the company in a negative way. Telling, and painful. And, in a way, very sad. Update: Microsoft responds. "For Microsoft, it is not sufficient to simply have a good idea, or a great idea, or even a cool idea. We measure our work by its broad impact."
Permalink for comment 408018
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
FurryOne
Member since:
2006-01-23

I assure you I am no spring chicken. If an allegation of copyright infringement was made, it wasn't from Stac; here's their complaint:


I've read their official complaint. I was also around to read the news that broke when they actually found their code in there. Just because the complaint doesn't say it verbatim...

Microsoft threatened to withdraw advertising $ to any company that even displayed the OS/2 logo in their ad.
Should MS pay for competing ads?


Let me clarify that - MS threatened vendors with loss of matching revenue if the "Made for OS/2" logo appeared in the same ad as the "Windows" logo did. So vendors dropped mention of OS/2 in their ads even when they still supported it.

They also, as a last straw, withheld W'95 licensing from IBM right up to the day before launch until IBM agreed to de-emphasize OS/2.

I wasn't there and can't speak to detail.


The man at the business end of OS/2 was, and that's what he said.

But I would note that one high-profile case recently established that another OS vendor was under no compulsion to license their OS to any OEM under any conditions at all.


It borders on "extortion". I noticed you didn't mention BeOS... maybe because MS was found guilty, because Be pursued the issue.

Wow, I guess all that fuss over the betas of Windows that "warned about incompatibilities" when they saw DRDos instead of MSDos had nothing to do with it, eh?
Betas have problems, sometimes documented limitations. It didn't ship that way.


It didn't ship that way because MS didn't want to get sued over it, and the damage required (to DRDos) was already accomplished.

Reply Parent Score: 3