Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:29 UTC
Zeta A lot of things have happened in the past few days concerning Zeta, BeOS, and Haiku. In order to create some order in the chaos, Eugenia and I have created a rough timeline of what happened the past 6-7 years. Read on for the timeline and some more thoughts on the matter. Update: Magnusoft ceases distribution of Zeta. Update II: Access answered the questions posed in the article.
Thread beginning with comment 227553
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by ormandj
by ormandj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:48 UTC
ormandj
Member since:
2005-10-09

This short timeline elicits a few interesting questions. Why did Palmsource decline to talk with Bernd Korz? Why did Palmsource never took any legal action against YellowTAB (that we know of)? Why has Access been so secretive about their actions against Zeta? Why did they choose a comments' section on a news site to speak in public about this for the first time? Are the recent talks between Access and Haiku a mere coincidence?


Those questions have already been answered time and again in multiple posts in the previous articles.

1) They had no interest in selling BeOS/giving rights to BeOS. Why waste time if there is no intention to ever part with the source?

2) 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.

3) English errors not withstanding, see #2.

4) 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.

[Edit: 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.]

5) From what I understand, the talks have been ongoing, and ACCESS has always been cooperative with Haiku.

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.

Edited 2007-04-04 21:52 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by ormandj
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:52 in reply to "Comment by ormandj"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by ormandj
by Beta on Wed 4th Apr 2007 22:29 in reply to "RE: Comment by ormandj"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by ormandj
by ormandj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 23:19 in reply to "RE: Comment by ormandj"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

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.

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.

In fact, the entire statement:

So. It's 2001. Be, Inc. is in talks with a German company (Koch Media, more here) to grant them distribution rights of BeOS 5 in Germany and the rest of Europe. 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). Eventually, YellowTAB buys that contract from that company.


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

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by ormandj
by jmansion on Thu 5th Apr 2007 12:35 in reply to "RE: Comment by ormandj"
jmansion Member since:
2006-02-20

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

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Comment by ormandj
by Eugenia on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:54 in reply to "Comment by ormandj"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

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

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by ormandj
by ormandj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 23:23 in reply to "RE: Comment by ormandj"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

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

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Comment by ormandj
by Vibe on Wed 4th Apr 2007 22:17 in reply to "Comment by ormandj"
Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

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

'Nuff said.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by ormandj
by Luposian on Wed 4th Apr 2007 22:25 in reply to "RE: Comment by ormandj"
Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

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

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE: Comment by ormandj
by Vibe on Wed 4th Apr 2007 22:24 in reply to "Comment by ormandj"
Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by ormandj
by ormandj on Wed 4th Apr 2007 23:29 in reply to "RE: Comment by ormandj"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

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". ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by ormandj
by segedunum on Thu 5th Apr 2007 15:21 in reply to "Comment by ormandj"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

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?

Reply Parent Score: 2

fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

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

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by ormandj
by JPisini on Thu 5th Apr 2007 15:58 in reply to "RE: Comment by ormandj"
JPisini Member since:
2006-01-24

"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.

Reply Parent Score: 1