Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Feb 2010 20:48 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 408018
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[5]: The "Accidental Monopolist"
by malxau on Fri 5th Feb 2010 21:46
in reply to "RE[4]: The "Accidental Monopolist""
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...
I guess my point is, journalists frequently do not understand such distinctions and there is considerable misinformation in reporting of almost everything. It seems unbelievable to me that Stac would allege copyright infringement to the press and not in court. Their version of events do not include things such as access to source code, which would have strengthened the case even for patent infringement. I completely believe that you read something that claimed verbatim copying, but that's not what happened.
"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.
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. "
Do we know what the other side of the negotiation said? Do we know what timeframe other OEMs signed onto licenses? Do we know on what terms? The one article I found on this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/368660.stm) seemed to suggest that the issues were more subtle - the cause for licensing delay was IBM not paying MS royalties for OS/2, which MS wanted sorted about before entering into additional licenses.
I noticed you didn't mention BeOS... maybe because MS was found guilty, because Be pursued the issue.
It's because this is the first I'd heard of it, and have nothing meaningful to contribute.




Member since:
2006-01-23
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...
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.
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.
It borders on "extortion". I noticed you didn't mention BeOS... maybe because MS was found guilty, because Be pursued the issue.
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.