Slashdot Mirror
Founder of Go Computer, Inc. sues Microsoft
wantobe writes "From Yahoo! News 'Microsoft saw Go's PC operating system as a serious threat to its operating system monopoly and took swift covert action to 'kill' it just as it did the Netscape/Sun Java threat to its monopoly," according to Go's private action in federal court. '
Are Kaplan's complaints warranted, or is he just taking advantage of some recent Microsoft court losses and trying to get his cut? "
Does Go feel they have a better case now that tablet PCs are using pens as a means for control?
In the 1980's pen recognition wasn't what most people would call viable so perhaps this "swift covert action to 'kill' the Go PenPoint wasn't as villanous than. However now, I'm sure there are a few judges that probably use a tablet with stylus and will see PenPoint as a possibly OS in a more favorable light.
-Teiresias
Why would we assume that those two are mutually exclusive?
Is there any doubt that MS would have behaved that way, if they really perceived GO to be a threat?
Is there any doubt that they would have behaved immorally and illegally if that's what it took to counter that threat to their monopoly?
Was there any reason for Kaplan to file a suit before there was a possibility of success?
I'd say there's a good chance that Kaplan is taking advantage of MS's recent court losses to get his cut ... the cut that he's warranted because MS wrongly did him out of it!
See what I've been reading.
Amazon.com link to book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140 257314/qid=1120666767/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-707629 3-4464656?v=glance&s=books/
Both could be true.
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
People, don't just RTFA, RTF book. If you read Jerry Kaplan's Start Up, you see that he was on the receiving end of Microsoft's illegal practices e.g. forcing OEMs to pay licenses even on machines that did not have Windows installed. Go was a real company, not some opportunistic "my business model is a lawsuit" bunch of asshats. For all the obvious reasons, challenging Microsoft in a court of law was hardly an option.
The fact that Microsoft shafted them in the early nineties and it's only now that Go is suing is irrelvant (not sure when Kaplan got the rights back from AT&T/Lucent to do so), the fact that pen computing did not take off back then, all these are irrelevant facts. MS broke the law to ruin other people's businesses. Now that they have been convicted of doing so, it's open season for a few years yet for anyone with strong evidence that they were a genuine victim.
StartUp is kind of a heart breaking read as a technologist. When Go is unable to get proper funding or business deals (here's where MS's business practice screws them, for instance), and the company dies even as part of AT&T, MS quietly shuts down its own pen computing division, apparently happy that another potential competitor has been crushed before it could be a problem. The idea is we're supposed to be able to try and get innovations tried by the marketplace, not blocked by people with the vested interest to do so.
If MS is found guily or settles out of court, then that would be entirely appropriate. Yes, there are so many complaints like this that it's a cliche. Doesn't mean there aren't genuine cases, and given there's a published book on the facts from 1995 - well before anyone knew MS could be successfully to court - I would say this is one of them.
A long time. At current levels, MS would need to settle a case like that once every 28 days before they start dipping into unprofitability. A $1,000,000,000 hit occasionally certainly hurts, but it's far from critical damage and is sustainable for some time yet.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
"it was touted as the case that would demolish Microsoft"
Only by a few delusional BeOS fans. The legal team which took this case had settled several previous suits and they were not taking a fee (Be Inc was a few months from bankrupt when it sold its assets to Palm Inc). So obviously they settled as soon as the Microsoft team made a favourable offer. The offer will have been calculated to give Be's lawyers a fair return (say a few million) and the rest went to the remaining Be Inc shareholders.
The articles states clearly that Kaplan was the FOUNDER of Go. When go went under, the remains of the company were acquired by ATT, and passed to Lucent.
Kaplan re-acquired the rights to sue on Go's behalf - not the whole company - in April. The litigation was years ago, but if these emails and memos weren't properly produced during discovery - if MS did, in fact suppress them - then they are definitely still in trouble, 20 years later or not.
The question here is not whether Go was ever a viable company, or even if they would have lasted in the marketplace... it is whether they were forced from the market by collusion and anti competetive practices.
To be honest, a written request by then CEO of MS to the CEO of Intel to reverse a planned endorsement of a potenital competitor, and one that carries the tacit threat of reprisals fits that bill. At worst, it's compelling enough to give Kaplan his day in court, and let the courts decide if history has moved too far to attempt to judge the impact of this action.
Even if the judge allows it, damages are unlikely what MS haters would like to see. Go was a pioneer, and far before it's time. However, it should be simple enough for Microsoft to demonstrate that the novel elements of his OS (handwriting recognition) would have required more horsepower, and more refined technologies than were available during that period to be truly competetive.
It is often the lot of the innovator to be eclipsed by those with less vision, less imagination, and a bigger marketing budget.
MS did something illegal? Will be hard to prove
Except for Gates telling Intel not to invest in Go. That just came out recently, and explains the timing and the viability of this suit.
why? What is wrong with amazon? if you don't like them you can always grab the isbn number and go to your libraries system to reserve a copy, go to broders, go to barnes and noble or even a store owned locally. The world isn't owed a favor to any degree and your suggestion that it is owed is offensive.