Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:29 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 227782
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by ormandj - new conspiracy theory for fun
by memson on Thu 5th Apr 2007 16:00
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ormandj - new conspiracy theory for fun"
> 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? ;-)
RE[4]: Comment by ormandj - new conspiracy theory for fun
by fyysik on Thu 5th Apr 2007 16:05
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ormandj - new conspiracy theory for fun"




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