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 227778
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by ormandj
by segedunum on Thu 5th Apr 2007 15:21 UTC 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

memson Member since:
2006-01-01

> Question - Inheritance?

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

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

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

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

RE[3]: Comment by ormandj
by andrewg on Thu 5th Apr 2007 18:05 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ormandj"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 3