Be, Inc. announced today it has filed suit against Microsoft for the destruction of Be’s business resulting from the anticompetitive business practices of Microsoft. The lawsuit alleges, among other claims, that Microsoft harmed Be through a series of illegal exclusionary and anticompetitive acts designed to maintain its monopoly in the Intel-compatible PC operating system market and created exclusive dealing arrangements with PC OEMs prohibiting the sale of PCs with multiple preinstalled operating systems. Our Take: This suit should have been initiated 3 years ago. Furthermore, notice the black mourning stripe on the Be logo at the Be web site. Dan Johnston, Be’s legal counsel, is the only person left working at Be’s new tiny office in Mountain View these days. Update: News.com has more info found in the filing itself and a mini-statement from Microsoft’s spokesman.
Be, Inc. Files Suit Against Microsoft for Violations of Antitrust Laws
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
…too little…….waaaaaaaaayyyyyy too late.
This was done way too late for BeOS or even BeIA. I just wonder, how does the legal system decide what sort of damage was done… what could have been… I imagine the settlement could either be through the roof or next to nothing.
This one will be *very* interesting to watch!
I know it’s always easy to see how things “should have been,” and that hindsight is always 20-20, but, darnitall! Be, Inc. should have sued the ever-lovin’ CRAP out of Microsoft a long time ago!!!
Who knows, they probably would have lost the suit, but it might have worked out ok … if anything, it would have given the DOJ more suitable ammunition in its case against Microsoft.
A bit late, and what is the point.
This is just a waste of time and money for Be.
as the say in éire *feckisms*, how long can the now defunct Be Inc. maintain a case against the jolly teal giant? First appeal court?
I’d love to see the evidence that gets presented by the remnants of Be, Inc. …
Here’s the other question: how does Be plan on funding the legal battle? I would think that Microsoft will just end up spending them under the table with countersuits and delays, etc.
Look at somebody funny, and your arse is sued.
Be were so stupid not to do this six or more years ago.
What a big pile of shit.
Ah, well … it’ll keep em’ in the news. Maybe they’ll donate their winnings to BeUnited?
>how does Be plan on funding the legal battle?
Read the announcement dummy
… could the argument also be made against Apple, back when they pulled the rug out from underneath the clone makers and Be, especially for refusing to release the specs for their chipsets, forcing Be to try for the Intel world in the first place?
at least they are doing it. The value is to the former share holders and creditors. I don’t know that they could have done this three years or even one year ago. Moreover, why should MS get away with illegal behavior. At least someone is standing up. Late yes but definitely better than never!
I don’t quite understand the timing (I’m no legal expert) but it can’t Be all bad because AOL just recently filed their suit!
It is most certainly NOT too late!
Go Be! Go! Go! Go!
ciao
yc
Pardon me for not picking up on that on my first quick scan. What the heck was I thinking? I must go out back now and ritually disembowel myself on the alter of non-dummyness.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for pointing out my failings! You’ve made me *that much more* of a better person.
Feel free to pat yourself on the back, too.
That is a thought but in todays days of the all pervading ‘IP’ the courts would probably side with apple.
..Now what about all that graffiti in public toilets I’ve done is that my ‘IP’.. or is it in the public domain ?
Don’t you read before you comment?
I’m no legal expert but does the timing matter in this case? Be claims that Microsoft literally destroyed their company … three years ago, Be was a company. They couldn’t have claimed such a thing back then. Such a case would have been far more difficult.
that the fight start!
In a funny turn for the books Be stock is up 20%
Be’s suit is on contingency–they don’t plan to fund it, effectively.
As for why do it now, I presume it’s mostly for shareholders’ benefit. Whether or not doing this three or four years ago would really have helped things is moot. At the time, Be’s solution to their inability to get preloaded by a major PC OEM was to suckerpunch the building vertical market interest they had in the A/V community so they could devote all their resources to chasing the chimera of internet appliances.
If I was a Microsoft attorney, I’d have some pointed questions in response: Be had announced over two dozen desktop developers–some fairly big names in niche markets–and they <em>did</em> have several lower-tier OEMs bundling their OS. Wasn’t the real issue that they just weren’t content to be the slow-and-steady tortoise on the desktop? Isn’t it conceivable that the top-tier OEMs weren’t interested yet not because of Microsoft strongarm tactics, but rather because Be wasn’t a proven commodity? The Intel release of BeOS came out in 2Q 1998 and their focus shift was in 1Q 2000. It took Linux <em>much</em> longer than that to get OEM interest, and for that matter, Windows itself was out for several years before it became standard. Wouldn’t it have been more reasonable to expect the Dells and Gateways to be looking seriously at BeOS <em>after</em> programs like Nuendo, Cinema 4D, UltraDV and the like had taken off? Maybe Be wasn’t patient enough to give them that chance and maybe they thought they couldn’t afford to wait as long as everyone else–even Microsoft–took to nurture new OSes, but either way, isn’t that Be’s problem?
You know, even if I <em>wasn’t</em> a Microsoft attorney, I’d be asking those questions.
The question is not about “too late or not”. Yes, it’s obviously TOO late for Be Inc. The good thing is, at last there’s ONE entity that sue Microsoft *FOR THE RIGHT REASON* !
If at least this sueing can open the eyes of some stupid attorneys, then it’s a BIG STEP AHEAD.
On the other hand, Be Inc have a REAL case of a dying company that *may* be perceived as caused by Microsoft directly (I don’t say it’s the case, but it’s a valid point IMHO in front of a jury). By being a “symbol” of the Microsoft monopoly abuse, maybe other biggers rivals will be pleased to fund Be Inc in the back (did I think AOL?).
Whatever it is, I doubt that Be Inc will sue Microsoft at this point of their life, without having a good strategy behind this.
Wow, what a concept! Read the article before commenting! Gosh, I guess I must have missed that day in school when they were teaching that one…
Yes, I did read the article. Like I said, I missed that section, or it didn’t register when I did.
Do you always call people names immediately in your first response to them?
Whatever. Doesn’t matter.
Now, on to more pertinent commenting
>I’m no legal expert but does the timing matter in this case? Be claims that Microsoft literally destroyed their company … three years ago, Be was a company. They couldn’t have claimed such a thing back then. Such a case would have been far more difficult
I don’t see why. You don’t have to go bust to prove MS’s anti competative antics!
Wow, finally a lawsuit against MS that centers attention where it should be centered – Microsoft’s dealings with OEMs regarding the no dual boot policy.
This makes a lot more since than MS’s competitors trying to tell Microsoft what and what not to put in their own operating systems.
Personally, I think Be might have a good case because unlike the abomination that is Linux on the desktop, BeOS might’ve had a chance, given the right kind of developer support.
Wow – 30 minutes ago there were 0 comments, and now they’re 24. The fastest growing thread on OSNews?
The black mourning stripe on the Be logo was around at the time of the auction as well (don’t remember if it was on be.com as well at the time)
http://www.arpagan.com/auctions/2002Jan16/BE.html
Hmm, its seems this is the month to sew people, Come to find out if we dont stop useing the name Inferno then Vita Nuova (makers of Inferno OS) is gona drag me off to some cell some place and though away the key … It must be something in the water.
slow joe crow sews knox in box now
WattsM, You ask “Isn’t it conceivable that the top-tier OEMs weren’t interested yet not because of Microsoft strongarm tactics, but rather because Be wasn’t a proven commodity?” Scott Hacker’s article (linked in the story) points out why it was more than just Be’s lack of patience:
“In the 1998-1999 timeframe, ready to prime the pump with its desktop offering, Be offered BeOS for free to any major computer manufacturer willing to preinstall BeOS on machines alongside Windows. Although few in the Be community ever knew about the discussions, Gassée says that Be was engaged in enthusiastic discussions with Dell, Compaq, Micron, and Hitachi. Taken together, preinstallation arrangements with vendors of this magnitude could have had a major impact on the future of Be and BeOS. But of the four, only Hitachi actually shipped a machine with BeOS pre-installed. The rest apparently backed off after a closer reading of the fine print in their Microsoft Windows License agreements. Hitachi did ship a line of machines (the Flora Prius) with BeOS preinstalled, but made changes to the bootloader — rendering BeOS invisible to the consumer — before shipping. Apparently, Hitachi received a little visit from Microsoft just before shipping the Flora Prius, and were reminded of the terms of the license.”
If they were willing to do it for free, it seems that all that reasonably prevented dual boot machines from shipping was Microsoft licensing restrictions.
At first blush, I thought, waaaaaaaaay too late…..but didn’t I hear that Palm was thinking about a suit against Microsoft for anticompetitive practices in the handheld arena?
Might be an interesting way of testing the waters for Palm, and with BE substantively dissovled, it might make a more compelling argument in court assuming:
1) you can prove that you were forced out of business by the anticompetitive practices of microsoft, and
2) not because of your own managerial incompetence.
I don’t know what you think, but it will be difficult to get #1 to stick with microsoft’s lawyers using JLG’s “it’s all my fault” translated quotes to damn the company in court.
The counter argument that microsoft could make is that “noone wanted the software” that BE created (it was, after all, available, if not at the OEM level), and simple market forces prevailed.
ITs a long shot, at best.
Very hard to beat that as well.
It’s all coming back to me now .. wasn’t fujitsu in there too/
Anyone though what might happen to BeOS if substantial amounts were won in this case? A possibility of back in business at all?
It makes my nipples go hard…
>Anyone though what might happen to BeOS if substantial amounts were won in this case? A possibility of back in business at all?
Too late. So what if Be wins the case? BeOS is now PROPERTY of Palm, NOT Be’s.
The timing is legally right, normally civil laws provide about five years after aknowledgement of the damaging actions. If you probate bad faith on one of the parties (fraudulent behaviour), there is no time limit to litigate.
I don’t care either about Be anymore, this is a bit weird, a ghost in Court.
Just think about this….. Be Sues Microsoft, and wins Billions. Be Takes billions, or a few millions, and buys Palm OS division. Be begins marketing and releasing BeOS on the Desktop, and a BeIA-palm OS on the Hand devices. Be Starts hitting Mickey$oft from all sides, and this time has the large customer base, install base, and the marketing potential…..
I can dream Can’t I…. 😎
Microsoft is a convivted monopolist, BE only has to prove they were damaged, and they get triple the amount of the damages.
Right?
Just wondering
Where there every any companies that put out BeOS preloaded on machines. I could see some Graphix and Audio shops wanting a machine designed from the ground up to kick ass with BEos. Did anyone even try?
Yes.
Hitachi preloaded BeOS a couple of years ago (only available in Japan IIRC.) Had to use a boot disk and read separate documentation to access it.
Berunner.com offered BeOS ready systems for awhile. They disappeared a year or so ago IIRC.
Frizbe.net currently offers systems preloaded with BeOS.
I think there were also some companies in Europe that also sold BeOS systems.
Well this made my day.
Now i’m curious what will happen. My be stock might become worth something if they get a settlement. At this point they have nothing to loose. I would like to see myself get more than a few bucks that my stock is worth.
I’m curious if one of the things that brought this one aside from all the obvious things was that after the liquidated their assits they couldn’t pay off all their debts. ( I don’t know if this is the case but I doubt the 11 million and what every they got from the aution covered their losses). Granted if they file for bankrupcy or what not and have no money to pay with well then i guess it doesn’t matter if they don’t have the money. (i’m not sure how that works, Isn’t bankrupcy the way to go to avoid paying people back?)
At anyrate I’m glad they are finaly doing this. Kinda sad how if they do have some success at this case they will become more known to people for this then they ever were when they were….well more active then they currently are. Maybe MS will just write them a check for 50 million and say go away and never bitch again.
If Be has felt in business ’cause M$ rules the OEM world, users could think that btw Beos should be a good product : it’s not a technical fealure but an another M$ marketing victim…
Radar was based on BeOS two. It was more Pro Audio Toy than desktop.
Treble damages == 3 MS shares for 1 Be share.
then I’ll BeHappy 🙂
Don
I hoped something like this was coming.
I hope Be wins, and I hope they win big. Billions would be a nice start.
Microsoft caused harm. Great harm. They deserve punishment. Great punishment. Yes, the employees and shareholders too. That’s what you (should) get.
Yeah! that’s right, a reverse ENRON
ciao
yc
Be have a strong case.
About time. First instict when reading the heading was “kick their butts!” At last, the fricken browser issue ignored for the real meat; the source of the problem.
MS does business like the mob. Their behavior is so out line that even local phone company SBC (a monopoly in its own right) is testifying against them. I don’t think any tech company has every been this bad and gotten away with so much blatant abuse. Thank god that Be is suing them, and i hope that BE can collect every last penny possible. I am shocked that some of you are actually protecting MS or still blaming JLG. Be abandoned the desktop because they had no other choice. MS does not accept coexistence. Look at what they are now pulling with nokia. It is sick. The blame does lie on MS.
MS has
retarded the development of teh PC industry by years, maybe 10s of years. They are now trying to use thier monopoly to tax the web, broadband/isp services, wireless services, and everything else. It is utterly ridiculous. Worse yet MS seems to perceive those abuses as their right, and the trial showed their complete disregard/contempt for the law.
Looks like a mob building to get behind this.
Looks like I should sharpen my pitchfork and light up the old torch.
I think Be might be going out for blood, but I doubt much will happen here. I want to see something happen and feel they very much have a case. But just watch, the case will get thrown out in a low court on some stupid grounds or something. Seams like good things bounces off Be and Bad news sticks.
I can see this being settled out of court. M$ stock was down over $1 a share today, I don’t know for sure but that has to be more than they’d ever have to pay out in damages to Be. The longer they were to let this drag out the more damage it could create from other would be lawsuits.
This was inevitable. They retained the right to do this when they sold their IP to Palm. Why now? Well, the appeals court didn’t rule till last summer, a month or 2 before Be sold to Palm. They now have less to prove in court. Why at all? To give back money to the inversters, like me.
On another note, anyone else sick of the work “innovation”?
To WattsM:
>>At the time, Be’s solution to their inability to get preloaded by a major PC OEM was to suckerpunch the building vertical market interest they had in the A/V community so they could devote all their resources to chasing the chimera of internet appliances.
It is an overstatement to call going into the appliance market a “solution” to their MS problem — it’s called trying survive. If you have a blocked nose, you breathe through your mouth. It doesn’t fix the blocked nose.
Be had no choice, it could not have gone against the desire of present and potential investors. Which ever path they took they would have required more funding in the future. It had to show that they were committing all their resources to the pursuit of the goals set by the VC’s, and if certain goals were reached, then the VC’s would grant them more funding. The VC’s were interested in funding a potential growth market, not a law-suit against MS.
>>If I was a Microsoft attorney, I’d have some pointed questions in response: Be had announced over two dozen desktop developers–some fairly big names in niche markets–and they did have several lower-tier OEMs bundling their OS. Wasn’t the real issue that they just weren’t content to be the slow-and-steady tortoise on the desktop?
You are using the oppressor’s arguement. The oppressor always sets up an uneven playing field and then patronizes the disadvantaged competition by demanding them to follow the rules set down. It will then claim any lack of success is entirely their fault for not trying hard enough.
>>Isn’t it conceivable that the top-tier OEMs weren’t interested yet not because of Microsoft strongarm tactics, but rather because Be wasn’t a proven commodity? The Intel release of BeOS came out in 2Q 1998 and their focus shift was in 1Q 2000. It took Linux much longer than that to get OEM interest, and for that matter, Windows itself was out for several years before it became standard. Wouldn’t it have been more reasonable to expect the Dells and Gateways to be looking seriously at BeOS after programs like Nuendo, Cinema 4D, UltraDV and the like had taken off? Maybe Be wasn’t patient enough to give them that chance and maybe they thought they couldn’t afford to wait as long as everyone else–even Microsoft–took to nurture new OSes, but either way, isn’t that Be’s problem?
Again this is the oppressor’s arguement. How could BeOS become a proven commodity if it was barred from the major OEM market place? There was plenty of OEM interest, the PC makers sell boxes, not operating systems. If adding the option of BeOS could significantly bolster sales they would do so. So, there was demand, there was a market place, but Be was barred from the market place. Again, it’s just patronizing to say Be should have had a little more patience. It’s like pushing someone’s head underwater and saying, “Stop struggling, have a little patience”.
To further describe the uneven playing field, consider what OEM bundling would have meant. Be would only need to develop drivers for the relatively small range of OEM hardware to support 80% of new PCs. Over time, as older unsupported PC’s were replaced with newer ones, Be’s support for current desktop hardware would grow organically without the need to support more and more legacy hardware, and eventually the playing field would level out. Having a large installed base will also encourage hardware manufacturers and hobbyists to write drivers for high-end and legacy hardware.
>You know, even if I wasn’t a Microsoft attorney, I’d be asking those questions.
I hope they do, because Be has the answers. It’s more likely MS will try to side-track the court and bury the real issues.
Pahtz
>>On another note, anyone else sick of the word “innovation”?
I am sick of Microsoft abusing the word “innovation” every time they get caught in an inundation of illegal stuff. It’s always in the name of “innovation”.
ciao
yc
“There was plenty of OEM interest, the PC makers sell boxes, not operating systems. If adding the option of BeOS could significantly bolster sales they would do so.”
Actually, I don’t really see what was interesting in BEOS at that time to the OEMs. Who among the non geek cared about BEOS? Do you really think that an OEM could have prove that dual booting BEOS would increase significantly their sells? At least to a point that the profit would outweigh the cost (driver, testing, support…). Sorry but for a vast majority of consumers, a dual boot would be something more scary than an advantage.
…basically, I don’t think the cost of the BeOS license was the issue, the issue was the perception of consumer demand. OEMs are putting Linux on their PCs because some of their customers–not many, probably, but enough–have been asking for it.
Small companies can afford to focus on alternative operating systems, and indeed if you watch Linux, it was a few small companies that were bundling Linux with their custom systems first. It took years for big companies to even acknowledge Linux’s existence, much less consider making it available as a preload, and even now most of the big-tier ones don’t bother or do it very quietly. BeOS simply wasn’t at that stage yet. As a workstation operating system, it needed to have workstation apps–what Gassee always called “tractor apps”–that enough people would not only want to run, but would specifically want to run <strong>on BeOS</strong> before any major company would seriously consider that.
I’m not suggesting that Microsoft is the model of corporate innocence here, certainly; I remember their multiple attacks against Digital Research, from the CP/M-86 era up through DR-DOS, that eventually forced them out of existence. I <strong>am</strong> suggesting that, like it or not, there’s a good case to be made that Microsoft was at best Be’s #2 foe, and that what ultimately did them in was their impatience with cultivating a niche A/V market and unwillingness to be sold “only” in shrinkwrapped boxes just like Linux–and on dedicated workstations smaller companies like iDot and AST were willing to put together. As that well-known BeOS user Pogo put it, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
…if Microsoft didn’t illegally abuse it’s illegal monopoly to block entry to the OS Market.
Any attempt to say that Be would not have been successful is just speculative.
I think Be would have been very, very successful if it wasn’t for Microsoft’s illegal practices.
ciao
yc
http://www.susmangodfrey.com/attprofiles.html
ciao
yc
Utility companies are a type of necessary monopoly. It would be impracticale to have 7 different water companies each running seven different water and sewer systems. These utilities are subject to much government regulation and scrutiny to avoid abuses to the end consumer.
If Microsoft justifies that on a windows machine, only windows should be directly accessable as a boot option, they as well should be subject to the same government scrutiny and overview as any utility.
I am glad that Be Inc. is going through with this. Though it is too late to save BeOS itself, this will at least be a fight for the consumers well being and freedom of choice! There is no doubt that Microsoft was anti-competitive with its monopoly and they need to be punished with the maximum penalty allowed! I notcied their spokesman said that supposedly this will hurt the likes of innovation… well that is exactly what Microsoft has already done if not totally annihilated it by now?!
Microsoft is very important to the computing industry, but so is everyone else playing their important roles and if Microsoft is the only one left standing, then we the ‘consumers’ will lose and the computing industry will see its doom!!! I don’t agree that Microsoft should be split up or anything of that nature, but I do agree in a very stiff penalty!
I wish Be Inc. and their attorneys the best of luck 🙂
Yeah! about damn time!
Ok I see the represented enron in 1997 and won. So they can help evil win, or help a company that who knows how they made so much money, lets hope they can do good when starting with a good company thats not evil and never made any money.
I guess seeing Enron in there made me freak, like a 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon thing. These people represent Be against MS who got helped by Pres. Bush by getting the DOJ of their back some, and gave him money. Bush got money from Enron and was buddy buddy with them to were he was like a pen pal with Ken Lay, Enron was represented by these people who now represent Be, 5 hops. Guess it’s more of a circle though. Yes this is looking to much into things.
The Court of Appeals held that:
a. The licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems worldwide constitutes a relevant antitrust market, and Microsoft has monopoly power in that market. Id. at 51, 52, 56-57.
b. Because the applications barrier to entry protects a dominant operating system irrespective of quality, it gives Microsoft power to stave off even superior new rivals. Id. at 56.
c. The applications barrier to entry is a characteristic of the operating systems market, not of Microsofts popularity or Microsofts efficiency. Id. at 56.
d. Microsoft undertook unlawful actions to maintain its monopoly in the operating system market and is liable under Section 2 of the Sherman Act for monopolization of that market. Id. at 80-81.
e. Microsoft barred its rivals from all means of cost-efficient distribution. Id. at 64.
f. Microsofts anticompetitive behavior includes its prohibition on OEMs from modifying the initial boot sequence. Id. at 62.
g. [W]ith the exception of one restriction prohibiting automatically launched alternative interfaces, all the OEM license restrictions at issue represent uses of Microsofts market power to protect its
monopoly, unredeemed by any legitimate justification. Id. at 64.
h. Microsofts deception of Java developers by making them think that the Windows-dependent Java applications would be functional across platforms was exclusionary and in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Id. at 7677.
i. The causal link between anticompetitive conduct and the maintenance of Microsoft’s operating systems monopoly is inferred when exclusionary conduct is aimed at producers of nascent competitive technologies. Id. at 79.
j. [i]t would be inimical to the purpose of the Sherman Act to allow monopolists free reign to squash nascent, albeit unproven, competitors at will. Id. at 79.
ciao
yc
“Actually, I don’t really see what was interesting in BEOS at that time to the OEMs. ”
They WERE interested, including Hitachi (for asian market) and Dell, plus lot of others that I can’t remember (but someone posted the complete OEM list on OSNews somewhere that were really interested to bundle both Windows & BeOS, but dropped at the last minute because of Microsoft contract).
“Do you really think that an OEM could have prove that dual booting BEOS would increase significantly their sells? ”
Ok, other way around, how do you know that bundling with Windows WOULD NOT increased their sells ? For the beginning increasing *significantly* was not a priority, but getting a *little* increase in profit is always welcome.
“Sorry but for a vast majority of consumers, a dual boot would be something more scary than an advantage.”
It would not have been on the majority of PCs, but only in few lines to put some added values to possible clients who may want to give it a try.
“This sort of litigation is not in the interest of consumers, nor is it good for the industry,” said Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler. “The industry is at its best when it’s developing new products and focusing on innovation.”
(from news.com)
Wasn’t that exactly what Be inc. was trying to do before MS shut it off at every possible point?
In the 1998-1999 timeframe, ready to prime the pump with its desktop offering, Be offered BeOS for free to any major computer manufacturer willing to preinstall BeOS on machines alongside Windows. Although few in the Be community ever knew about the discussions, Gassée says that Be was engaged in enthusiastic discussions with Dell, Compaq, Micron, and Hitachi. Taken together, preinstallation arrangements with vendors of this magnitude could have had a major impact on the future of Be and BeOS. But of the four, only Hitachi actually shipped a machine with BeOS pre-installed. The rest apparently backed off after a closer reading of the fine print in their Microsoft Windows License agreements. Hitachi did ship a line of machines (the Flora Prius) with BeOS preinstalled, but made changes to the bootloader — rendering BeOS invisible to the consumer — before shipping. Apparently, Hitachi received a little visit from Microsoft just before shipping the Flora Prius, and were reminded of the terms of the license.
: “focusing on innovation”
Yeah exactly.
What’s good for the industry (ie the Windows industry) is to focus on innovation so you can copy it and then stomp on it.
Now – as for the timimg.
The thing the Be needed was for MS to be proven a Monopoly. They then needed to wait for the appeals to compete etc. etc.
By that time they were deep into trying to save the company – filing a lawsuit was secondary.
“…too little…….waaaaaaaaayyyyyy too late.”
I wouldn’t say that. I think now’s the perfect time. Why? Because what’s left of Be will win and win big. Now that there’s fewer of Be left, the profit shares will be much more considerable for any Be people who are left. : )
It doesn’t help the BeOS community at all, but Be as a company will gain big.
Look at Caldera. They sued MS over pretty much the same thing in regards to MSDOS vs. DR DOS. Caldera made quite a bit of money off of MS (note, I’m not talking about Caldera Systems who makes a very fine, stable distro of Linux, but rather Ray Noorda’s Canopy company.)
Lets find out what really happened here. Drag all the behind closed doors deals that happened with Compaq Be and Microsoft out into the open. Maybe the DOJ will have to look into the entire bootloader issue finally, instead of focusing on the browser.
The Register and Slashdot also have coverage:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/24134.html
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/02/19/2226257.shtml?tid=87
Someone made the analogy the Windows could be likened to the utility companies. I don’t know where you live, but here in California we have deregulated the power utilities in the name of competition. You can buy your energy from whomever you choose, not just SCE or PG&E, or whoever your local dealer was. If they were to say that Windows is like a utility, maybe it would finally be time to open up the door for desktop diversity.
— Rob
“I don’t know where you live, but here in California we have deregulated the power utilities in the name of competition.”
Competition is not *always* a good thing on all aspect, but I firmly think that competition is *ALWAYS* better than no competitions at all.
And I always follow my beleives. I’m (french) canadian native. I moved in US a year ago. And God know how much I want to STAY ! (I’m ready to sell my soul for a green card, if someone have contacts with lucifer) 🙂
If this company gets “profitable” after 10 years of burning money, after they fired all their employees, sold every property they had and after I lost over $20.000 when I finally sold my stocks… I’LL GET A GUN!
I’ll shoot myself from the rope I used to hang myself after taking poison, to fall from the window of a 50 story building to crush on the pavement, where I am run over by a car, two trucks, a tank and a whole marching band… with an elephant.
As my eternal sould gently rises up, just before it is violently sucked down into the 7th hell, I think I caught a glimps of JLG poking through my remains to make a grab for my wallet.
“This sort of litigation is not in the interest of consumers, nor is it good for the industry,” said Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler. “The industry is at its best when it’s developing new products and focusing on innovation.”
(from news.com)
here the phrase: “you have the right to stay silent” take all it’s sense.
I have lot of idea on how Be can win this and i can say i’m quite confident.
I will not talk about it here because it would only save money to microsoft
Now, something i can say is that america have a BIG problem with what is call : corporate america.
IF Be don’t win this, the big evil guy always win. It’s Enron all over again. Criminal hidden as CEO, CFO and all the tribe of nazgul.
This is very dangerous because it can lead to revolution by civil desobediance to pay income and tax.
Even more, lot of high tech company could move out of the USA because they have no right there.
Why do you think bush want to attack irack and … north korea! Just to save is sorry butt because he is implicated a LOT in what is the current state of Be inc.
In fact the Be case with a little immagination (or should i say innovation) could become the case of the century.
Well that and Bush just wants to have wars going on cause it’s the only thing that can help his approval rating. But remember, leaders usualy get the boot after a war, chirchhill, GHW Bush… Just 2 years 11 months to go.
I think Linux had way more to do with a demise of BeOS. Be was trying to carve out a piece in the “alternative OS” pie. Linux has about 90% of this pie (market share). The fact that Be could not convince droves of Linux users is because they were just as appealing as M$; closed source, proprietary OS, with a
single company at the helm. If that company dies so does the OS, and all of your investments into that OS.
The beauty (sadness) of this all is that you can’t sue Linux!
would Apple’s refusal to allow Be inc to run on apple machines be considered anti-competitive?
“I think Linux had way more to do with a demise of BeOS”
haha, Linux has never been a problem for BeOS.
BeOS is so much easier to install that it isn’t
even funny. Try plugging your linux harddisk in another
machine, BeOS just boots even when all the hardware is different.
BeOS also have a consistent GUI e.g. copy and paste
work in every application…
There is also a news article on MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.com/news/711314.asp?0dm=T14NT
Lala, BeOS could have taken over the share of the alt OS pie without much trouble with out conveting linux people if it had gotten into the windows market, convert them. What linux people want is a completely differant market than what Be was aming for. Be was shooting for the consumer freindly make money with good product approach. Linux hits the thinking OS’s should be free and opensource runs on anything if you work at it I like to tweak things all day market. I don’t think you could convert most linux people to something else no matter how hard you tried or showed them something else is better. I don’t know that Be ever tried to bring them over, course they barly brought windows people over. Probly the biggest conversion was mac people, who then as mac beos faded went back to mac.
Also curious, does anyone know what BeOS’s highest market share was? and at that time how much above linux was it?
“haha, Linux has never been a problem for BeOS.”
Haha, no wonder Be tried marketing it as “..runs well alongside Windows and Linux”.
“Try plugging your linux harddisk in another
machine, BeOS just boots even when all the hardware is different.”
Pitty the world doesn’t really see this as a killer future no? Or else BeOS would still have a chance! Hahaha.
FYI, I placed an exact copy of a disk in my other Linux box the other day (original SCSI disk died) and it came up without a single problem, everything worked just fine. I only had to change the IP address since I use static ones on my LAN. The only problem I see is if you have different types of videocards in the boxen. Fortunately I’m NVIDIA only so that’s not a problem.
“BeOS also have a consistent GUI e.g. copy and paste
work in every application…”
And still it bloody died! That’s just pathetic!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/24134.html
“Microsoft, in conjunction with third parties acting as its agents, succeeded both in artificially depressing the price at which Be was able to sell its initial IPO shares and in preventing Be from engaging in a post-IPO effort to raise investment capital through a
private placement offering.”
“The repricing of Be’s stock has long been the subject of Valley scuttlebutt. Be Inc originally announced its intention to price the stock in the “$8 to $10″ range; the company
eventually launched at $6.”
ciao
yc
So, what would be do if they won and got a huge chunk of cash? BeOS and BeIA are now owned by Palm, so they can’t do much with that…
You don’t really think that the stock holders are going to get anything out of this do you? This is a ploy by a bunch of inept businesmen to cash in on being morons. The management at Be had plenty of reasonable opportunities to be successful and instead they chose to do the worst thing possible at every turn. I hope they lose and I can laugh as creditors cart away their belongings.
Yes, I’m a bitter BeOS developer who invested bucket loads of money, and stole huge amounts of time from my family, to actually release a BeOS product. Only to watch Be do incredably stupid things while I watched my investment go down the toilet.
In fact if they win perhaps the BeOS developers should sue Be for destroying our businesses.
BEOS could give the money back to the people who invested in them. If they get treble, they could give the investors 200% of their investment, and keep the original amount invested for themselves. Microshaft could also be banned from repeating the behavior. If BEOS gets 300% of their PROJECTED maximum worth in a non-monopolisitc industry – things could get bad for Microshaft.
Go Be, Inc!!!
Destroy M$ for good!!!
I’m surprised to see and read comments from people that say “it’s too late for Be”. What kind of reasoning is that? For people who endorsed Be all the times, you should encourage this and not bully it. It’s never too late to right the wrongs. If Be finally got the evidence they needed to fight back, well they should sue. I hate injustice and wish strongly that M$ gets it. This reign of bad engineered software from Redmond must stop because it`s costing billions of dollars each year to small cies, and big alike.
2 thumbs up Be!
Yea right!
“Stop smokin’ that weed son, it ain’t no good for those li’ll cells of yours.”
Linux has nothing to do with that Be’s situation! We’re talking about illegal procedures taken by M$. Before commenting, you should read what’s happening on the scene. And it’s not because you can plug an HDD into another Linux box with a different configuration that makes you in the know.
From Microsoft’s spokesman:
“This sort of litigation is not in the interest of consumers, nor is it good for the industry,” said Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler. “The industry is at its best when it’s developing new products and focusing on innovation.”
Translation:
“We crushed your puny company! All of your innovations are pointless because you’re dead and consumers DON’T CARE! Bwa-ha-ha…”
Launch all lawsuit. For great justice.
– chrish
“BeOS is so much easier to install that it isn’t
even funny”
Actually, it is a good argument for Microsoft. If BE is so easy to install (and I agree it was), then having it or not pre-installed by the OEM should not have prevented the growth of BEOS.
There was other way to distribute BEOS: putting it on the Net like it was done for V5. Too late, badly done (free and non free were so close) and most importantly, no follow up. But BE had probably decided to give up BEOS at that time.
“Linux has nothing to do with that Be’s situation! We’re talking about illegal procedures taken by M$.”
Yeah, what a bunch of cry babies. Couldn’t compete with code and smarts, so we’ll sue. Can I sue Be for the time I wasted coding stuff for their platform??? It was sheer stupidity of Be management that killed the platform!
“And it’s not because you can plug an HDD into another Linux box with a different configuration that makes you in the know.”
Haha, grow up.
“From Microsoft’s spokesman:
“This sort of litigation is not in the interest of consumers, nor is it good for the industry,” said Microsoft spokesman
Jim Desler. “The industry is at its best when it’s developing new products and focusing on innovation.”
Translation:
“We crushed your puny company! All of your innovations are pointless because you’re dead and consumers DON’T
CARE! Bwa-ha-ha…”
LOL!!!! “The industry is at its best when it’s developing new products and focusing on innovation.” ?? That’s what Microsoft pervented by crushing Be! man… this is amusing…
BeOS is so much easier to install that it isn’t
even funny”
Actually, it is a good argument for Microsoft. If BE is so easy to install (and I agree it was), then having it or not pre-
installed by the OEM should not have prevented the growth of BEOS.
There was other way to distribute BEOS: putting it on the Net like it was done for V5. Too late, badly done (free and
non free were so close) and most importantly, no follow up. But BE had probably decided to give up BEOS at that time.
Please read the complaint Be put out, http://www.beincorporated.com/msft_complaint.pdf it explains the whole OEM thing and why it was so important very well.
It’s only 21 pages.
“This sort of litigation is not in
the interest of consumers, nor
is it good for the industry,”
said Microsoft spokesman
Jim Desler. “The industry is at
its best when it’s developing
new products and focusing on
innovation.”
This is so funny, it bears repeating.
The litigation is in about as much interest of consumers as is strangling innovation a la Be, DR DOS, Stac (remember them?), Netscape, and countless others. We will either buy you or crush you. Your choice.
No wonder MS is compared to Borg.
No wonder MS is compared to Borg.
I AM PENTIUM OF BORG.
YOU WILL BE APPROXIMATED.
Heard that Red Hat and Mandrake (using RH hardware detecting stuff) survive a new video card as well if putting HD into new box. Never tried it myself…
This lawsuit from Be comes at just the right time. Three years ago, the DOJ had not already done all of the foundation work against microsoft. Now that has been done, it has been found that microsoft is a monopoly and that they have acted illegally. So, now is the perfect time for Be to attack, because they don’t have to pay the legal costs associated with that decision.
Also, it would not have been appropriate for Be to have sued Microsoft before Be’s business was ruined. Now that it has been, that gives them more ammunition. Be has been struggling to survive, as it should have been. Now that Be is dead, however, the finger of blame can be pointed. You can’t charge someone with murder if the victim is still alive.
So, in my opinion, in more ways than one, this is the perfect time for Be to file suit.
Now, chant with me: If you were stupid enough to “invest money” in developing BeOS software and are bitter that BeOS bit it, you should concentrate on some of your more difficult tasks, such as: keeping your heart pumping, making sure that your lungs are breathing, etc.
I AM PENTIUM OF BORG.
YOU WILL BE APPROXIMATED.
no… it’s IAM BILL GATES OF BORG. RESTIANCE IS FUTILE.
As far as I can tell, Intel has be very cooperative with Be, and should not be comapred to the borg in this instance.
https://trading.etrade.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+IPOTombstone?Mess…
http://theregister.co.uk/content/7/24134.html
ciao
yc
Good point by Clone304 above…I’ve been saying the same thing for months and knew it was going to come to this eventually. I also spoke of this in my letter to DOJ on the proposed settlement.
hornsmoker
was there ever a thread with 100 comments in it? only 3 more to go
sincerly though, I wish for Be that they win, both to see Microsoft suffer and see Be end its days in a nice color. I’d love to see an history book in 10 years teaching how the world was changed forever.
[the end of the world is near, Be is its precursor]
10 yr ago ibm introduced os/2 which was far superior to windows 3.1. m$ excluded os/2. so should ibm sue m$?
10 yr ago ibm introduced os/2 which was far superior to windows 3.1. m$ excluded os/2. so should ibm sue m$?
Yeah I’m the 100th post ! 🙂
I don’t think they can. First it’s ten years ago, and IIRC the maximum time to sue someone is 5 years after the act. Secondo, I don’t think the “multi-boot” issue was in MS contract at that time … So it was a “healthy” concurrency…