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? "

Comments

Will this be like the Be, Inc. lawsuit?

[CyricZ]

Several years back Be, Inc., developers of BeOS, launched a similar lawsuit against Microsoft. While it was touted as the case that would demolish Microsoft, I believe they ended up settling. So I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a repeat in this situation.

give me a break...

[rwven]

This was like 20 years ago... Why is he just now pressing charges? It looks like someone is low on cash so they thought getting on the "Sue MS" bandwagon was a good idea.

True: I do believe that if MS did do wrong, it should have it's tail whuped.

Also True: The extremely late timing of this looks very suspicious. It looks more like he's grasping at financial straws...

Re:Kooks

[MooseByte]

3. Pay off gov't or company suing them.
4. Profit.

With all the dirt that's coming up as one antitrust suit cascades into another though, I start to wonder just how long Step 4 will remain viable for MS. Especially after the US$850 million settlement with IBM (which only settled some of the claims there, IIRC).

To paraphrase a famous quote from a US Congressman, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money."

Karma's a bitch, and MS has bad karma by the cargo ship load to burn off.

Re:Microsoft has a point...

[szo]

Even if the technology was not there in '94, Go was a company comitted to develop it. May or may not they would suceeded with it by let's say '96, if they had the chance. Instead, I think something like this happened:

1, Go starts do develop the technology.
2, Need money, so make publicity, attract investors.
3, MS smells competition, announces similar product
4, investors think: why should I invest in Go, when MS will soon have the same product (competing with MS never good!), which (according to MS) will be as good as or better, run on windows, thus instantly have all win application, integrated, etc, you know the MS drill about a new product.
5, Without money, Go folds.
6, MS suddenly realizes that the handwriting is not so hot.
7, The handwriting development stops for years, the world is set back in this field by about 5 years.

MS did something illegal? Will be hard to prove. But they were well avare that anything they say, people listen, and abused their position.

Szo

Re:Sounds like a bunch of BS

[Dasein]

You might also consider reading his book.

Startup it's pretty old at this point but I remember enjoying it. From the book, it's clear that he was comitted to Go.

So, characterizing him as "sounds like a person who bought the company to sue and make some serious cash on the curtails of other companies legit claims against Microsoft" seems off base. I would probably say that it sounds like a guy who's startup got crushed then he sold the smoldering remains to AT&T. AT&T sat on it for a few years then the guy found out that his startup was crushed partly by illegal means. So, he buys the remains back and trys to go get the guys who messed him over.

I'd say that there's nothing unsavory about that. I'd say that the unsavory is pretty much on Microsoft's end of the deal.

Jerry has a point, too

[RetiredMidn]

I highly recommend reading Jerry's book, cited in TFA. Even if you take Jerry's claims with a liberal dose of salt, there are all sorts of signs of anti-competitive behavior, from arm-twisting potential partners of Go to possible violation of NDAs in the development of Microsoft's FUD^H^H^H PenWindows "alternative".

Personally, I always wondered why the government didn't use the Go story in its antitrust case; it's a tidily packaged narrative that hits many of the low points in the patterns of Microsoft's behavior. OTOH, they had so much material to work with...

As a struggling startup, Go didn't stand a chance in any possible legal action at the time, and AT&T didn't have the will (even if it did have the means) after Go was forced into selling out. Suing now may look opportunistic, but Jerry did only recently reacquire what's left of the company, and if he can demonstrate that illegal behavior by Microsoft contributed to the delay in his ability to pursue legal action, maybe he'll get his day in court.

Disclaimer: I had occasion to work with Jerry for a while before he started Go, although that doesn't really predispose me to take his side.

Re:Pen-based computing is a fairly recent phenomen

[Kevin Burtch]

I have several NCR 3125 NotePad computers that originally ran PenPoint OS.
These devices were what Microsoft now calls "Tablet PCs".

When they first came to market, Microsoft panicked and announced "Pen Extensions for Windows" (which added very little to Windows 3.1) and claimed that a buch of new systems were coming out to use it. Typical Microsoft vaporware tactics... everyone decided to wait for the wonderful new MS product instead of buying the PenPoint devices, and the market for them collapsed.

Considering that it took them this long to actually produce a product, they obviously only made the annoucement to kill any potential competitor from gaining a foothold.
Call it a conspiracy theory if you wish, but it's a court-proven tactic that MS loves to (ab)use and is quite famous for.

The handwriting recognition in PenPoint was actually very impressive, by the way.

happened to us too...

[micromuncher]

I don't think Kaplan's complaints are without merrit... because it happened to us.

I worked at a company making "digital delivery" ware - stuff that allowed try-before-buy and key-based product unlocking from CD.

Microsoft approached us with interest in the product. However, we could never get them to sign an agreement where they would commit to deploying the technology. They wanted absolutely every detailed spec including code for evaluation, without committing... it suffices to say after a few months with no agreement, we told them we would not release the jewels without an agreement where a product resulted.

Within two weeks, Microsoft announced their own vapour competetive technology. Its FUD department was publishing slander against our product (their security experts saying DES was better than FEAL, lol). Microsoft was lobbying NTT against us as well as some of our clients. Some new clients bailed because they said "We'll wait for that microsoft solution."

Does this sound like fair trade practice?

Re:Who has heard of Go Computer, Inc?

[Craig Maloney]

I really wish there was a "retract comment" in Slashdot. I completely missed that this was framed in the context of 20 years ago. Now I remember them quite well.

Argh. :)

Was MS even a monopoly then?

[dirk]

My first thought is that MS didn't even qualify as a monopoly in 1994. This was when Windows 3.1 was out, and there were still a few different versions of DOS. MS was not the juggernaut it is now, no where near. Many PCs shipped with OSes other than MS. If MS wasn't a monopoly at the time (and I think it would be hard to say they were) there was nothing wrong with them asking Intel not to invest in Go. If it happened today, there would be no question of the legality (as in none). But assuming it was malicious and illegal then based on MS now is just wrong.