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.So now, we can reconstruct fragments of the BeOS saga over the past seven years – with the help of Eugenia, that is. Eugenia is no new comer to the BeOS world (before OSNews she was running BeNews) and she has met Bernd Korz several times.
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.
Not much later, Be goes belly up, and sells its assets to Palmsource.
Bernd Korz and YellowTAB start work on Zeta – something they are not allowed to do as far as the distribution rights go, since they only have distribution rights of BeOS 5, and nothing more. Debate immediately arises in the BeOS community about Zeta’s legality. Especially the code leaked in early 2002 fuels speculation that Zeta is based on this illegal leak.
Now, Eugenia tells me that Bernd Korz went to America a few times to contact Palmsource but a number of times they not only declined to talk to him but he also became a running joke within Palmsource’s ex-Be engineers and executives (who for some reason did not like seeing BeOS resurrected via another company — some of them saw Haiku the same way too). Bernd eventually did meet Jean-Louis Gassee (who was a Palmsource board member at the time) to discuss the matter but we don’t know what ever happened after their meeting.
In the meantime, Palmsource is acquired by Access. Access is now the owner of Be’s IP.
In this role as owner, they say to have sent numerous cease and desist letters to YellowTAB, on the grounds that Zeta is “an unauthorized derivative work”. Access does not contact any news outlet, nor does it give out any press releases. The cease and desist letters go unanswered.
In the meantime, YellowTAB starts pushing up the daisies as sales have been very poor. Magnussoft takes over development of Zeta. They provide Bernd Korz with 5 people, and some funding to develop Zeta. All seems well at this point.
On 23rd March this year, Bernd Korz and his team part ways with Magnussoft. A few days later, Bernd announces he quits Zeta development altogether.
Today, we have Access stating that “if Herr Korz feels that he holds a legitimate license to the BeOS code he’s been using, we’re completely unaware of it, and I’d be fascinated to see him produce any substantiation for that claim.”
In a response, Bernd states on his weblog that he will be talking to his lawyer, and that a statement will be made soon.
This short timeline elicits a few interesting questions. Why did Palmsource decline to talk with Bernd Korz? Why did Palmsource never take 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? (update: The recent release of the BeBook/docs was after Jorge G. Mare (a.k.a. Koki) asked for it from Access.)
It seems that 6 years after its demise, the BeOS can still stir the operating system world up. Let us hope everything gets cleared up sooner rather than later.
)))
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
What the hell are you talking about? This is just listing the FACTS.
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.
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.
These are two obvious non-factual events, as there is uncertainty involved.
In fact, the entire statement:
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
No, the article does not take the side of anyone. This is clear when we say that the Koch contract was only about BeOS 5 and not Zeta and so forth. We simply layed out what we know about the case. Nothing more, nothing less.
>is debated further down in the comments on this story.
YellowTAB *did* buy the contract from Koch. The question is only if Zeta could be sold under that contract or not.
My understanding of permissive behavior here is that the contract from Koche was for the “Next Public BeOS Release.” That is, post-R5.0.3 by one release. Either that could be 5.0.4 ( never released ) or Dano ( leaked, allegedly by Be, INC ( marginally constituting a release )).
Following this path, legality is sketchy, and could warrant a dispute between Access and yellowTAB as to whether or not Dano was leaked by Be, INC as an unofficial release, but a release nonetheless.
This was apparently the result of failure on part of the contract to specify what warranted a ‘release’ or to specify an exact revision designation.
However, one could argue, that because Be, INC supplied 5.0.4 to yellowTAB ( or Koche? ) that Dano was obviously not the intent of the contract, but the cross-argument is that 5.0.4 was never released, whereas Dano was ( even if not officially ).
Access would then have to argue that the contract ‘implied’ official releases only, but then Bernd could just fall back on the wonder of contracts… basically if it ain’t written, it ain’t there. Meaning that the contract COULD then become illegitimated by the court due to improper vagueness ( only preventing further usage, but no punitive damage rewards ), but that would be a stretch.
Access, would have no burden, of course, to prove it even intends to use the IP, it owns it… that is all that they need.
Now, if we consider that yellowTAB used Dano as the ‘next-release’ base, with a contract that permitted binary substitution ( with some source access ) of the ‘next-release’, then Zeta is 100% legit until proven otherwise, but is also perfectly safe for anyone to use as the legal issues can’t even really hurt yellowTAB unless they get screwed over on legal defense.
–The loon
( Around for all these things, now nearly silently. )
My understanding of permissive behavior here is that the contract from Koche was for the “Next Public BeOS Release.” That is, post-R5.0.3 by one release. Either that could be 5.0.4 ( never released ) or Dano ( leaked, allegedly by Be, INC ( marginally constituting a release )).
It looks like the Koch contract was tighter than I thought. This totally removes any claim Bernd Korz has in my mind. It just puts him on the same level as a warez kiddie that made it big. Just because a preview copy is floating around and some employee with an agenda leaks the source, it doesn’t constitute an authorised release of a product. That’s like saying someone could charge for the leaked Doom III aplha or Half-Life 2 source and trouser the money.
Well, if I had a contract that said ‘next-release’ which gave me permission to use said product in the manner in which I am using it… I certainly would do it!
The contract ( permission ) is there, the question goes only to if Be had intended to have Dano or 5.0.4 as the basis ( 5.0.4 seems obvious, but the contract terms are what matters ).
I have not seen the contract, and some of this is conjecture from Bernd’s behavior while I was working at yT. I must also take credit for the entire idea of using Dano as a base, though the legal issues were suppose to have been sorted out through Bernd and a lawyer and some quiet nods of approval from PalmSource.
Problem now is that those quiet nods were not on paper, and PalmSource now belongs to Access. This means, that because there *IS* a contract, which is likely to be slightly vague in terms of what constitutes the next revision of BeOS releases, post-5.0.3, Be, INC’s failure to officially release anything represents a breach of contract on Be’s part.
Meaning yellowTab COULD now have a bullet ( though likely addressed via the original contract in some manner ) by which they can assert that they have EVERY right to consider Dano the first release after 5.0.3.
Now, the matter is to determine if executives or lawyers at Be, INC intended to leak Dano. The leak actually put-off legal problems of this regard, and could have been to help show what they had accomplished and to try and attract investment.
Or, it could be a ‘disgruntled’ employee, in which case Dano would be off-limits, and Bernd would have had to get permission from Be, INC to utilize even 5.0.4 ( which was never released or leaked as a full distro ), but failing to provide that permission would have been breach of contract in failing to produce the next release.
Dano solved those problems for Be, INC. And stood to solve them for yellowTab. I recognized this dynamic situation when I suggested to base the OS from yellowTAB on the Dano base ( and I was openly conducting R&D and testing via the SuperDANO project ).
The SuperDANO project was a limited experiment on various volunteer machines. No mirrors were created because that would violate laws in the U.S. and Texas ( where I am from ) and California ( where the intellectual property rights were governed ).
Prior to joining yT I had started PhOS, again with limited, but wider, testing. Bernd at that time was working on BeOS NG ( 5.0.4 distro ). He had spent much time on it, as I had with my own personal twist on Dano . We got together to write a program to keep several applications up to date in binary form based from stable CVS repositories.
After hashing out the shell in half an hour ( or so ), Bernd wanted me to help him out with BeOS NG, at yellowTAB. I agreed, and took my work from the public eye to hope to have it properly and legally releasable ( what I was hoping to do by purchasing a contract from Be, INC as they were losing value ).
The resulting product is Zeta, though after I left ( primarily because Bernd failed to provide the contract to me so I could verify the true legality of what was my project ) my source code came with me, but the binary manipulation techniques I used still seemed to be present until post-R1, as well as some of the test decors I had made while reversing the decors ( with partially workable code that Bernd claimed to have licensed ( and when I asked for the contract proof ).
–The loon
Just in case anyone wants the entire truth about why I was popular, more than just guesses, it is because I engineered a community environment by osmosis and attrition. My name got out, so I got popular. No other reason. ( Oh, and I was working very publicly as Linus Torvalds did when he started ).
Now, I am very wrapped up in some rather crazy development. All legal and owned by yours truly.
Gonna be a fun next 18 months or so ( if I don’t have to goto war first, or it come to me ( most likely so ) ).
As I’ve said elsewhere, executives of a publicly traded corporation simply can’t give away assets of that corporation based on a nod and a wink. I’d put the odds of this at somewhere between vanishingly unlikely and preposterous. To suggest that someone actually thought they could set up a business on this basis seems tantamount to admitting that pretty much everything I’ve said is true.
Dano was an unauthorized and infringing leak, there seems to be wide agreement on that. From whence it originated is, as far as this situation is concerned, pretty immaterial. You’d appear to be in complete agreement with the position that Zeta is pirated.
I guess if that was your legal theory, your next step would be to file suit against Be, Inc. (I’d note that ACCESS is still the–infringed-upon and uncompensated–owner of the code in question.) Unfortunately for this scenario, there is no such thing as “Be, Inc.” at this point. That corporation has been dissolved. Certainly you couldn’t expect ACCESS to effectively grant a retroactive, royalty-free license to someone who didn’t even bother to ask us about it in the first place, on the basis that he had, or almost had, or thought he had, or claimed he had, a contract with some entirely different corporation, no longer in existence…?
(I don’t suppose you’d like to provide better contact information to me? I’ve got a number of questions I’d be very interested in asking. You can write to [email protected]…)
But Palm didn’t buy Be, Inc.: it bought its intellectual property. There’s still no license possible by which Zeta could be legitimate under this scenario.
Lefty stated:
It’s time you clarified a few things with the legal department. Save for a few exceptions (such as contracts for the sale of land), contracts do not have to be written. It does seem to be true that using written contracts adds some impression of professionalism to business dealings. Many business deals are concluded on the basis that the parties have known each other for many years and trust each other to carry out their responsibilities to each other fairly and honestly.
Bernd-Thorsen has shown to be trustworthy over a protracted period, in that the sources for BeOS have not, to my knowledge, been leaked by him or anyone on his team.
On the other hand, your lawyers seem to have failed at the discovery stage, which is rather remiss of them given that yellowTab was publicly advertising a derivative product for sale at that time.
Your company is in the unique position of holding the rights to a product which is wanted by enthusiasts, but which has little commercial value. This could become a PR debacle for you, or a triumph. Play your cards well.
haiqu
Edited 2007-04-09 06:07
It does seem to be true that using written contracts adds some impression of professionalism to business dealings. Many business deals are concluded on the basis that the parties have known each other for many years and trust each other to carry out their responsibilities to each other fairly and honestly.
According to media reports, Bernd has a bad rep in the construction industry due to his “special” way of doing business, before we even get into the way he’s conducted affairs during the YellowTab saga and beyond.
Your company is in the unique position of holding the rights to a product which is wanted by enthusiasts, but which has little commercial value. This could become a PR debacle for you, or a triumph. Play your cards well.
Access have given valuable software to the open source community, and have released valuable documentation for BeOS. And don’t forget, it’s all a moot point as Haiku is getting closer to release. Access have acted well. Whining just makes YOU look bad.
Edited 2007-04-09 06:32
Vibe stated:
Skipping irrelevant issues such as Linux code, name one BeOS user who didn’t have copies of these docs, acquired legitimately with any distribution (paid or PE).
Until Haiku R2 is released we’ll still have a sub-standard system compared to Be, Inc’s last efforts. But moot it is indeed, I have neither used nor developed for BeOS for years. Interesting to watch the machinations though.
haiqu
p.s. Couldn’t find any online reference to Bernd’s construction industry background, perhaps you could provide a URL. Not that it matters … more rumours.
> p.s. Couldn’t find any online reference to Bernd’s >construction industry background, perhaps you could >provide a URL. Not that it matters … more rumours.
No rumours it’s true.
I remember the first TV show (NBC Giga) were ZETA was presented. Bernd talked also about his background and education or former job he learned.
The video is avaiable through BeShare.
True we had copies of them but not the right to modify them and update them. You can now rewrite the documents to be Haiku specific. I don’t know the outcome of everything that is happening now but the gift from Access was very generous.
True we had copies of them but not the right to modify them and update them. You can now rewrite the documents to be Haiku specific. I don’t know the outcome of everything that is happening now but the gift from Access was very generous.
Good design and documentation doesn’t fall out of the sky and it is very, very valuable. In pure money terms the BeOS design is worth millions (for free) and the documentation is worth, at least, several tens of thousands, if not more. It will certainly have a strong part to play in user uptake. Soft factors like this can help make all the difference, and I’m sure Access are not ignorant of the fact.
Mmm, in the software business every thing is done by paperwork. I was in BeOS developer program thingy and even that required a signed (on paper) and mailed NDA form.
When Be was sold to Palm ex-Be employes openly had their doubts about yellowtab…
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.
What? This is 100% factual! It would be non-factual if we had started to speculate about what happened during the meeting– but since we do not know, we just said, “we don’t know”. THAT is factual.
ormandj, you seem hell-bent on attacking Zeta, yT, and Bernd. This is fine by me, we live in a free world, but pleae do not force YOUR biased ideas on to Eugenia and I, who are just trying to be as close to the facts as possible.
Edited 2007-04-05 09:07
Thom,
>What? This is 100% factual!
It is and it isn’t. Your wording made it sound like Koch never produced a R5 distro, when in fact they did for years. In fact, you could still buy R5 a year after Be went under in the UK. Koch media CD’s mind you. As I said, GoBe never made it over here in a big way.
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
OrmandJ, you are overreacting and it seems that you have made up your mind, so I will stop responding right here.
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
I’d argue that if he knowingly screwed people, he did a marvelous job at it.
I have reason to suspect that he did, and this timeline is missing many facts that haven’t been made public yet. These haven’t been made public for the benefit of the community. As long as Zeta had a chance at becoming viable (Even if it was a very very slim chance with Mr. Korz in charge), there was no good reason to help destroy it by exposing some of the actions that were quite clearly knowingly carried out.
At this point, I and I suspect others are waiting to see what kind of statement Mr. Korz makes after consulting with is lawyer before saying any more.
The last thing I want to do is open myself or someone else up to potential law suits, weather that’s slander, libel, or otherwise. So until this thing is really dead, my lips are sealed.
Mr. Korz has pulled several “all hope is lost, oh wait I found another gullible idiot” stop / starts with Zeta now. I want to make sure this horse is dead before I kick it some more.
I’d argue that if he knowingly screwed people, he did a marvelous job at it.
Korz may have deluded himself. Like some of the more notable figures of history, he may have acted in the belief he was right. That he found himself fighting on two fronts, with legal and market difficulties, didn’t help. Beaten by an “expeditionary force” of questions and the “cold winter” of crushing debt his retreat to the bunker of Schloss Korz is a sad inevitability.
Achtung Haiku!
Could you all please stop linking Bernd Korz’s business failures to Nazi Germany/WW2? And if I wanted stylistically bad usage of German words, I’d go play Wolfenstein 3D. Vibe, your post is over the top, racist and just not funny at all.
Could you all please stop linking Bernd Korz’s business failures to Nazi Germany/WW2? And if I wanted stylistically bad usage of German words, I’d go play Wolfenstein 3D. Vibe, your post is over the top, racist and just not funny at all.
People make mistakes. Bernd Korz made a few mistakes. These things happen. I think, it’s better to accept them, learn from them, and look forward.
Banzai!
After Koch got stiffed, YellowTab Bernd money, until Zeta became a lost Korz.
‘Nuff said.
Modded you up one for some seriously creative use of names, there! Good going! Funny, too!
Modded you up one for some seriously creative use of names, there! Good going! Funny, too!
Thanks. Not quite sure what side of the line it’s on but I’ve been waiting for a chance to use it. Maybe, if everyone can have a laugh it might help ease some of the frustration and anger around here.
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.
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”.
Meanwhile there has been some sort of a statemend by Korz: On April 4th, the German IT news site Golem.de also reported on the story and approached Korz with an inquiry, presumably on the legality of ZETA.
Korz’ response takes an even more bizarre turn than I had expected. He says, he was unable to comment because these issues were beyond his knowledge, since they were the business of yellowTAB with whom he is no longer involved and hasn’t been for more than 12 month. yellowTAB, he says, is represented by the court-appointed insolvency administrator. See http://www.golem.de/0704/51528-2.html, last paragraph.
It looks like Korz is the Zaphod Beeblebrox type of personality. He cannot recall, what his former self, the then executive director of yellowTAB did.
And even though after the demise of yellowTAB he has continued to develop ZETA, he maintains, that he is unaffected by these legal issues.
Edited 2007-04-05 13:29
He cannot recall, what his former self, the then executive director of yellowTAB did.
I have no recollection? Classic. The number of times that’s been said by people who wound up disgraced or in the slammer is legion. Once the big press starts sniffing it’s not long before the police start knocking on the door. This could get big… fast.
I reckon there could be a book deal in this, and nobody is better placed or more involved than people at OS News to deliver that. Robert X. Cringely did well with Triumph of the nerds, and there’s no reason to suppose it’s not worth calling an agent on this one.
there were two “official” persons in YT, Bernd and some man from former half-fake German “multimedia” company.
Maybe Benrd points on deals of that person?
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?
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
> 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? 😉
are you sure about dates and responsibilities?:(
Sad if that is.
Inspite “Fools Day” is over, I thought it might be Really Big Conspiracy Theory:(
“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.
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.
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.
Apples and oranges and a very bad analogy. First, Access doesn’t have the influence on public opinion and public reaction CNN has (or can have). Second, there’s a huge difference between some merry band of free-lance developers — with or without the right to modify certain OS code — moving around from basement to basement in Germany and BK. Third, there’s the issue of libel. Wild claims like what you offer by way of analogy would be actionable if untrue. CNN would have to verify that’s actually BK’s practice or BK would sue the feces and recycled feces out of CNN.
The reason there is so much secrecy is probable due to the innumerable lines of SCO code involved.
AH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, *THAT* was funny! I modded you up one, for that joke alone!
Keep ’em laughing, Fret! Keep ’em laughing! 😀
“””
The reason there is so much secrecy is probable due to the innumerable lines of SCO code involved.
“””
Billions and billions!
-Carl Sagan
Yes indeed, there is SCO code in Zeta! Just an example:
;
^ that’s SCO code!!!
It’s clear now: SCO didn’t sue IBM because they wanted to be bought by them: that was just a diversion. The hidden purpose was that they wanted to be bought by yT. When it comes to strategy no-one can outsmart SCO!
I should dig my IRC & mail logs and make my own timeline… but I’d have to sue myself for disclosing that
Still, that would explain lots.
The article says “Why did Palmsource never took any legal action against YellowTAB (that we know of)?”
Shouldn’t the word “took” be “take”? Even then, the sentence sounds weird, but it’s an improvement.
It doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t?
What a sad state of affairs when proper english
“doesn’t matter” on an english based, news focused website.
Eugenia, since you’re familiar with the “BeOS world”, what do say about these speculations?
Btw, Thom, you seem to overreact from time to time too. How about we all take a chill-pill? I was a frequent consumer when I was living in the Netherlands
Which speculations?
Speculations was maybe the wrong word, the “interesting questions” posed near the end.
Speculations about the contract with Koch.
It seems to me it covered making derivative works and branding. How did Koch came in possession of source code etc.
“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”
I don’t think that statement is correct. Koch media definately already produced boxed BeOS R5 Pro CD’s at least from around the release of R5. Way before BeOS NG or Zeta. I have a copy of it. In the UK they were the only version of BeOS that was ever “on the shelves” in stores (including PC World, where I got my Koch media copy.) I got my copy about a year before Be went under. I never saw a copy of the GoBE CD until a few years later. The Kock distro is almost identical, except it is bi-lingual (English and German) as is the rather thick manual that comes in the box, you get a “shareware and freeware” CD too, and the MP3 player (soundplay is it?) that GoBe installs to /boot/home is not present. I think everything else is the same fairly well. The CD is red and black. The box is silver black and has coloured writing, screen shots and is bi-lingual. Both PPC and Intel are on the CD as with GoBe.
Maybe they wanted to extend their rights?
Anyway,
1 2nd this. my copy of r5 is from koch, and one of the first they made (i have to install r5 from the shareware-disk because they mixed up the lables
)
Why did Palmsource decline to talk with Bernd Korz?
Because they probably had no interest in licensing something that wouldn’t generate revenue. And I think that’s something that gets overlooked in all the zeal about how great Be was. It wasn’t a great business, it wasn’t a great business model, and it wasn’t greatly demanded by the public.
There’s a very practical reason Be died, why Palm did little if anything to resuscitate it themselves, and why everything associated with it since then has failed: there’s not enough commercial demand for Be to make it economically feasible. There weren’t enough users when it was contemporary, there aren’t enough now to make it worth resurrecting. If there were, we wouldn’t be discussing who’s distributing or not distributing Zeta this particular week.
(After reading Eugenia’s World Plan on her blog last weekend, I’m pretty sure the economics and business part of it is totally lost on her.)
Why did Palmsource never took any legal action against YellowTAB (that we know of)?
For the same reason Access says they haven’t: it wouldn’t be in their financial interest to do so. For the same reason bank robbers rob banks and lawyers rob insurance companies and auto or gun manufacturers instead of poor people actually responsible for crashes and gunshot wounds: it’s all about who has the money.
YellowTab and Magnussoft don’t have deep pockets, the product never sold like gangbusters, and Bernd (if he went beyond whatever license agreement he had) isn’t important enough to sue. The only remaining reason anyone would sue is out of principle, and it would be more costly for them than anyone they accused of IP infringement.
Napster was a prime example of when someone would sue for IP infringement. Millions of people were using it and the media companies feared losing their shirts over it. BeOS/Zeta aren’t used by millions, there’s no groundswell for BeOS or Zeta, so there’s no interest protected in suing.
Why has Access been so secretive about their actions against Zeta?
Because nothing is served by giving the issue any publicity. Sometimes it’s best to conduct these matters privately and let things wither naturally. Do you really think they ever feared Zeta would catch on like wildfire and take over the world’s desktops? Hahaha! If they had ANY fear of that, it would’ve been a big deal. Letting Zeta die as quickly as possible served all their interests.
Why did they choose a comments’ section on a news site to speak in public about this for the first time?
How certain are you that that’s actually the case? And what difference does that make if they indeed own the IP related to Be and Zeta is an infringement?
Are the recent talks between Access and Haiku a mere coincidence?
Maybe your tinfoil hat is a little snug. It could all be coincidence, it may not be. It’s irrelevant if the people at Access are accurately stating the situation between their IP and Zeta. It doesn’t matter what Access wants to do if Access holds the Be intellectual properties. Those would be their rights, not Zeta’s.
YellowTab and Magnussoft don’t have deep pockets, the product never sold like gangbusters, and Bernd (if he went beyond whatever license agreement he had) isn’t important enough to sue. The only remaining reason anyone would sue is out of principle, and it would be more costly for them than anyone they accused of IP infringement.
Didn’t Zeta sell more than BeOS originally did?
How much did that gross?
Why didn’t Palm or Access see any money?
Where did the money go?
Edited 2007-04-04 23:29
Didn’t Zeta sell more than BeOS originally did?
Hardly a measure of success given that Be started giving it away after the Apple deal fell through.
How much did that gross?
Not enough to justify continued development and sale, apparently.
Why didn’t Palm or Access see any money? Where did the money go?
What money? You’re equating sales with profit, and I don’t think BeOS or Zeta were ever in the black. From everything I’ve been able to gather, Be was floating on venture capital and never came close to realizing a profit. I wouldn’t expect Zeta to have fared any better.
“Hardly a measure of success given that Be started giving it away after the Apple deal fell through.”
what means “giving away” – “for free?”.
If so, the deal failed in about 1996, and “free” BeOS saw the light in march/april 2000.
what means “giving away” – “for free?”.
Yes, the limited PE. How many copies were downloaded or distributed before Be sold its assets?
If so, the deal failed in about 1996, and “free” BeOS saw the light in march/april 2000.
Like I wrote, AFTER the deal fell through. You have to remember the climate in the late ’90s with venture capital flowing like crazy. Be’s misfortune came when the tech bubble burst and the rivers of VC dried up — which was about the same time the free PE was released. That wasn’t enough to save the company because there just wasn’t demand for its operating system.
” How many copies were downloaded or distributed before Be sold its assets?”
There are two different questions here. Downloads number reached million in first months. +CD copies in several magazines. Sales was measured merely in tenths of thousands, AFAIK.
“Like I wrote, AFTER the deal fell through.” – AFTER is useless then in your first posting.
4 years is really huge huge time in IT-bussiness world.
So, if it meant under hood “immediately after” – that’s wrong.
If it was meant as reason-replacement word (“due failure with Apple deal”) – that’s also very uncertain, as lot of things really happened inbetween, each of these adding its own reasoning summarized to that “shifting focus to BeIA and giving desktop version for free” decision.
AFTER is useless then in your first posting.
No, it isn’t.
as lot of things really happened inbetween, each of these adding its own reasoning summarized to that “shifting focus to BeIA and giving desktop version for free” decision.
Not really. Be’s business model was dependent on licensing/selling BeOS to Apple for the Mac, with which they were never going to be able to compete with their own BeBoxes. Everything that happened after Apple brought Jobs back was contingency, not to mention entirely inadequate to float a sinking ship.
lucky13 wrote:
“-(After reading Eugenia’s World Plan on her blog last weekend, I’m pretty sure the economics and business part of it is totally lost on her.)”
missed that one, but this one she wrote made me kind of sad:
-“One could argue that the future of BeOS lies with Haiku. But the reality is, the future of BeOS doesn’t even exist. The “operating system days” where several hobby/alternative OSes made the round in the news outlets are long gone. Linux has taken that 3rd place in the OS market and nobody gives a shit anymore about OSes like SkyOS, Syllable, ReactOS or Haiku. These OSes make a much smaller impact today than they used to do back in 2001.
This is why I tried to drive OSNews away from OSes and more into the general technology campground. There is no money to be made in operating system [news] anymore.”
ouch. I have no illusions that Haiku is ever going to be anything remotely mainstream (I would SO love to be proved wrong though) but that doesn’t mean I don’t give a shit about it, or other alternate operating systems either for that matter. it’s actually the reason I come here. I can find info on the mainstream systems practically anywhere on the web. I come here to fuel my interest for all operating systems, but those alternate ones in particular. ahwell…
missed that one
I haven’t seen anything so extensive in support of centralized planning since the Berlin Wall came down.
http://eugenia.blogsome.com/2007/03/26/the-perfect-society/
I come here to fuel my interest for all operating systems, but those alternate ones in particular.
So do I. I understand (and agree with) what she means, though. OSNews does a better job covering those alternative OSes than anyone else does, but they have to cover stuff that can pay the bills, too. And in fairness, the alternative OSes are still getting covered (and by Eugenia) — just look at this article and thread.
‘Linux has taken that 3rd place in the OS market and nobody gives a shit anymore about OSes like SkyOS, Syllable, ReactOS or Haiku. These OSes make a much smaller impact today than they used to do back in 2001. ‘
Well, Reactos is an upcoming operating system which development will strengthen also Wine. In 2001 nobody discussed Reactos.
And Freedos is a good choice for embedded technology, which comnpetes pretty well with MS Dos 6.
Haiku is a Beos reservate but hey, there are still Amiga supporters out there and I love Geoworks.
Mac OS X was in a very similar state despite they had more money and a critical mass of customers.
Why did Palmsource never took any legal action against YellowTAB (that we know of)?
For the same reason Access says they haven’t: it wouldn’t be in their financial interest to do so.
However, this does not explain, why the company never publicly clarified the legal situation before April 4th. This would have come at no cost. If there was no business relationship between both companies and if they were really so annoyed about yellowTAB as to send them cease-and-desist letters “on multiple occasions, it is hard to understand why they never went public before yesterday.
this does not explain, why the company never publicly clarified the legal situation before April 4th. This would have come at no cost.
I addressed that matter by noting that Access had time on their side and only had to wait for Zeta to die. It was bound for failure. Zeta was an unprofitable venture. Ask Be’s old developers and the VC people who probably got pennies on the dollar for their investments in Be. Ask Yellow Tab. Ask Magnussoft. Ask anyone else who’s willing to waste time looking at the amount of resources it would require to (1) produce in retail-worthy volumes, (2) continue code development, (3) advertise, and (4) even provide Zeta with a website and the look at the demand for Be or Zeta and how the income would never match the costs required to continue its development.
There was no need for Access to do anything that would give Zeta any publicity (good or bad). All they had to do was wait and let Zeta fail. They did that. They don’t have to clarify anything to anyone if they hold the Be IP — that’s their call and they owe no one an explanation for how or why they do business.
Well, if Bernd Korz screwed up people by selling them something that he does not own, it would have been the damn duty of ACCESS to go public and warn people, that they are getting defrauded. One could say that, by staying silent for so long, ACCESS has made itself complicit in this fraudulent operation, all under the condition that Korz had no legal rights to use the BeOS sources.
Well, if Bernd Korz screwed up people by selling them something that he does not own, it would have been the damn duty of ACCESS to go public and warn people
How many people actually bought Zeta? Do you REALLY believe it’s worth siccing a corporate lawyer who specializes in international IP issues and bills at $500 per hour with a 200 hour per case minimum on a little band of Zeta developers?
One could say that, by staying silent for so long, ACCESS has made itself complicit in this fraudulent operation
In which case one would be wrong. Their silence is neither complicity nor a culpable action of fraud. Besides, they made private contact with the party they believed was violating their IP. That’s all that matters.
Do you need a lawyer to make the statement David Schlesinger just made? Even without suing yT/Korz, a issuing a simple warning in time would have had a tremendous impact.
…it would have been the damn duty of ACCESS to go public and warn people…
As the IP owners they always were/are/will be the only ones to decide what to do about the whole affair. I agree that 100 Euros are quite a lot of money, especially for a niche OS, but the questions “what about source access?” and “is this legal?” have remained unanswered by Bernd for seven years. IMHO, if people are gullible enough to buy a product of questionable legal status, that’s their own problem.
How many people actually bought Zeta?
It’s quite telling that magnussoft dropped Zeta stating it didn’t sell well enough. As a small company they certainly didn’t expect any big sales figures when taking over the project, so my guess is that sales must have been really, really low.
Do you need a lawyer to make the statement David Schlesinger just made? Even without suing yT/Korz, a issuing a simple warning in time would have had a tremendous impact.
As Access have stated, they’re not aware of any rights Bernd Korz claims but they’re not just some internet mouth. Their own business is at stake if they just go firing off. If Bernd Korz could screw millions out of them on some technicality that’s loss of reputation, management time, and possible loss of jobs. That’s the difference between some random mouth on the internet and a company operating in the real world. Lets see you put your house on the line before you bash Access.
Do you need a lawyer to make the statement David Schlesinger just made?
That’s the whole point. They didn’t have to do anything because Zeta was dying on its own.
There was no need for Access to do anything that would give Zeta any publicity (good or bad). All they had to do was wait and let Zeta fail. They did that. They don’t have to clarify anything to anyone if they hold the Be IP — that’s their call and they owe no one an explanation for how or why they do business.
Taking legal action can get expensive and messy very quickly, and suck up management time that would be better spent on shipping product and looking after customers. Business reputation is important, so Access may not want to have seen their name tarnished by a shady company, or have customers think they’ve lost focus. Why ruin a good business for small beer?
Well, if Bernd Korz screwed up people by selling them something that he does not own, it would have been the damn duty of ACCESS to go public and warn people, that they are getting defrauded. One could say that, by staying silent for so long, ACCESS has made itself complicit in this fraudulent operation, all under the condition that Korz had no legal rights to use the BeOS sources.
Access have done nothing wrong. If anyone should be investigated and charged with criminality it’s Bernd Korz. I agree that customers being sold a product with no future (distribution cut off date) or support (no rights to source code) have been badly served but that doesn’t make Access complicit. They’re a victim as well. This is why I think the police should take charge.
Edited 2007-04-05 16:26
I disagree with your assessment:
Yes, it was a terrible business model from the point of view that it took far too long to kill off the PowerPC system and the port – quite frankly, it was a money loseing waste of an effort to continue developing a machine that occupied a niche within a niche within a niche.
Lets say they went right off the bat with BeOS, killed off PowerPC and hardware business long before R4, and focused on purely on the x86 platform – they wouldn’t have had the mirrade of issues which plagued them.
They would have retained alot more money which they could have then pumped back into development rather than propping up their hardware business – but even then, it was an operating system going for a niche, and we all have seen those who occupy a niche – they eventually die, there isn’t the volume to keep up with the rising costs that are associated with software development.
The only real hope, is the opensource implementation in the form of HaikuOS – I said it around 8 years ago, the only way that BeOS can survive is for the opensource community rally around; companies come and go, but if the code is opensource, there is always going to be someone or something willing to pick up the ball and run with it.
I disagree with your assessment:
My assessment was that it was a bad business built on a worse business model. Then you describe how it was a bad business built on a worse business model. So just how do you disagree? By hypotheticals!
You can play hypotheticals all you want but that doesn’t change what Be was or that it’s defunct today. There was no demand for it on any platform — not to the extent that anyone could make money from it. There weren’t profits to be made that could be rolled back into development.
Open sourcing BeOS wouldn’t have done anything that Be didn’t try — and they had plenty of venture capital money to play with. I have nothing to say about the Haiku project except that I admire its progress; I haven’t used it, and I doubt I ever will. Technically and with respect to consumer demand, I don’t think it has better legs under it than Be ever did.
Now for some tough love — and I promise this isn’t flame bait, it’s just the cold hard reality. I wrote on my blog last night:
…I think that’s one of the great ironies: Be paid no homage to the past with support for legacy hardware — BeOS was intended only for current hardware. In recreating an open source BeOS, will Haiku be relevant to our increasingly smaller wireless future or will it be relegated to our increasingly archaic desktops?
http://lucky13.blogsavy.com/2007/04/04/another-beos-spin-off-bites-…
In trying to be a modern desktop system, Haiku already way behind the eight ball. I don’t care how technically superior it may be to Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD, or anything else. The modern desktop isn’t where Linux and other OSes are trying to get more share. That war’s pretty much over with a few minor skirmishes for small turf advances remaining. The next frontier where the battle is being fought in earnest is away from the desktop — mobile, smaller, scalable, secure. That’s where Linux is battling for big share, and winning:
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=21904&hed=Linux+%E2~*~…
How many phones will Haiku run on in five years? What will their market share of mobile devices be in the next decade? Probably less than their share of the desktop market in 2007.
Be wasn’t something consumers wanted in the 1990s. I don’t think consumers want Haiku or will want it in the foreseeable future, on desktops or otherwise. Be was ahead of its time; Haiku is behind the times.
Be wasn’t something consumers wanted in the 1990s. I don’t think consumers want Haiku or will want it in the foreseeable future, on desktops or otherwise. Be was ahead of its time; Haiku is behind the times.
The world’s full of experts who say something will fail, and when it succeeds they want a slice of the action. The potential for Haiku is tremendous. The hard part is realising that potential. Getting to R1 will shut a lot of mouths who said it would never happen. The rest? I think you get the idea…
The potential for Haiku is tremendous.
The genuine momentum of Linux is greater than any perceived potential for Haiku. Haiku won’t do any better than BeOS on the desktop, and in looking at its roadmap I see no plans for scalability so it can run on anything but x86 desktops and maybe PPC. Where’s anything about being able to run on mobile devices? It doesn’t even have a fully-operable network stack yet.
http://haiku-os.org/glass_elevator
http://dev.haiku-os.org/roadmap
In addition to cell phones, Linux is targeting (and reaching!) the next wave of PDAs:
http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=12928
This isn’t flame-bait. Just the facts. Haiku’s focus isn’t on the future (mobile), it’s on the past (desktop). That’s not what I call potential.
In addition to cell phones, Linux is targeting (and reaching!) the next wave of PDAs: