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? "
Are Kaplan's complaints warranted, or is he just taking advantage of some recent Microsoft court losses and trying to get his cut?
Yup. This has been going on for a long time. Once a company becomes successful, kooks start coming out of the woodwork to sue them. It's starting to happen to Google too. Microsoft is an ideal victim for this, with their "unclean" history when it comes to other peoples' intellectual property. Microsoft would be well advised, if they haven't already, to have a strict regimen for ensuring that all code they release is really theirs. This is the only viable defense against these types of suits. This suit certainly won't be the last.
It looks like opportunism to me. According to the lawsuit, Gates wrote in a memo, "guess I've made it clear that we view an Intel investment in Go as an anti-Microsoft move, I am asking you not to make any investment in Go." That doesn't seem like enough to dig up a 20 year old case, especially since the "grandfather clause" for those types of cases is 5 years.
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.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Do not suppress Go, do not collect one billion dollars.
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
I'm not saying that the technology didn't exist 20 years ago when Go was making their Pen-based computer. However, the computing world back then didn't take it seriously, and until the PalmPilot III was released less than 10 years ago, using a stylus was simply not a reasonable way to enter data into a computer.
20 years ago, there was no mobile computing world to speak of, and Microsoft's monopoly did not extend into that field at all. Their first real forays into the mobile computing world, with the Casio Aladdin and eventually the Cassiopeia, weren't even pen-based, as such. They were more like the original HVGA HPCs.
I don't feel this case has any merit. Microsoft's power did not extend to the area that Go contends they were forced out of. And when someone (Palm) serious came along with a viable mobile operating system, Microsoft was caught way off guard and stumbled quite a bit.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
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...
That might well be true... however...
:)
If Microsoft DID use unfair monopolostic practises, then EVERY company that commercially released software that in ANY way overlapped with Microsoft's business would have been adversely affected by Microsoft's illegal/unethical practises, even if it was in the minutest way.
So, yes... let people sue Microsoft. There has to be SOME downsite for being an illegal monopolist.
(And, never let it be said, now, that Microsoft totally weaseled out of 'that' court decision
"Handwriting recognition had severe limitations in the late 1980's and early 1990's and no company that attempted pen computing was successful then," [Microsoft spokeswoman Stacy Drake] said.
Go was sold to AT&T Corp. in 1994, which closed the company in July of the same year. In November of 1994, Microsoft shut down its competing pen-computing effort, called PenWindows, which the suit alleges had largely existed to destroy Go.
Go was based on handwriting recognition. The technology was not very good in the early 90's and has only recently become usable. I realize that most of Slashdot never sides with Microsoft but in this case Microsoft only made a competing product that didn't even do very well itself. Just because Microsoft shut down their PenWindows division after Go was sold does not mean that it existed to destroy Go. This was 1994! Handwriting recognition was horrible! -Keith
Reject any submission that ends with '?'. Makes the submission sound like a tabloid. Imagine an article in the NYT ending with a question mark. Doesn't make sense.
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain
...for just a few more months and closed it in 95, then where would this suit be?
Of course, everyone ascribes to Microsoft the mastery of the mythical magical power of money, so therefore the only reason Microsoft would shut down an effort so soon after Go did and sold to AT&T would naturally be, mission accomplished. Not the very real reason that it was just not going to happen back in 1995 the way Go or Microsoft wanted.
Go is being a real opportunist and they need to be slapped down. The Linux world needs to understand that their derision for Microsoft doesn't change the fact that opportunistic lawsuits happen all the time. The SCO affair should make that abundantly clear. How long till some small distro outfit sues Red Hat or Novell? If there's merit, there's merit, but this doesn't smell like it and neither does SCO's actions and if things keep up like this, it is bad news for any IT company for the future.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
The story is well described in his book, Startup : A Silicon Valley Adventure. He has some point.
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.
Could you at least read the very first paragraph of TFA?
"The founder of Go Computer, a pioneer of pen-based computing that was once seen as a possible alternative to Microsoft Corp.'s operating systems, filed antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft last week"
Au contraire, it is officially ("Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999 that Microsoft's dominance of the personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly.").
Also breaking the OEM and MSFT monopoly would have been a nice idea. So you would have to buy the 'expensive' software off the shelf. That might have made people think twice about buying it.
That'd kinda be like selling appliances without power cords. Make people decide what source of power they want. I mean people could choose - wall sockets, solar power, nuclear reactor in their basement, hampster wheel, whatever. But you'd probably wind up with a lot of people who'd fry themselves trying to attach the default power method anyways, just like you would probably wind up with a bunch of people buying Microsoft products anyways. It's just not worth the trouble.
-everphilski-
I mean a google search for Go PC operating system gives this as the first result...
I'd say something is fishy...
Get your Unix fortune now!
This has been argued before. Simply put, it is not necessary for NO alternatives to be available for a monopoly to exist.
To phrase it without the double negatives
People don't remember that there was a reason Microsoft won. They actually had a better product.
Where "better" is (as you note) defined as "more compatible with Microsoft's existing product". Where the competition was compatible, Microsoft changed their software to make it incompatible (this is not simply speculation, it's well documented by MS employees and in MS memos). Microsoft really DID have that kind of power to cripple a competing product back in 1987 (or the early '90s: Windows wasn't really usable until Windows 3.11 and the 386 came together).
But the key thing that you're missing is that the fact that "better" means "more compatible with DOS" means that Microsoft was starting the race at the finish line.
Pretty damning stuff.
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.
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.
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
This has nothing to do with stolen code. This has nothing to do with Intelectual Property or Copy Rights. GO is not claiming infringment, nor theft (though they imply it) This is an AntiTrust lawsuit. GO is claiming that Microsoft used it's Monopoly like power to control the market and other vendors in a delibret effort to cause their company to fail. The problems they'll have is that the whole thing took place in the late 80's, long before Microsoft was originally found guilty of abusing it's monopoly like powers. The other challange they'll have is proving MS was delibretly trying to snuff them. They can show the coinsidence in time lines for development, but they'll be hard pressed to come up with a smoking gun or 20 year old memo that says "Saturate pen market, destroy GO!" -Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
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.
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.
While I agree with you generally about big companies who have to be diligent about the behavior of its many employees. This case is about more than just IP infringement. Go is also complaining about anti-competitive behavior. In this case, they have a record of the CEO being involved. Bill Gates personally contacted Andy Grove and advised him not to invest in Go. Personally the message reminded me of a Godfather's offer that no one could refuse.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
No matter how many times the evidence gets posted, there are still people who seem ignorant of Microsoft's criminal behaviour. Of course, we also know that Microsoft has been caught paying people to write articles and post in forums, so we never know what a given poster's motivation is.
Cases like Go's lawsuit are _NOT_ frivilous attempts to get money out of Microsoft. On the contrary, Microsoft has had a series of losses in court BECAUSE MICROSOFT WAS GUILTY.
In just the last few years, Microsoft was found guilty of criminal behaviour by the DOJ, and has had to make massive payouts to Sun, Novell, IBM, Apple, and others. Those are not companies that got rich through frivilous lawsuits.
Microsoft's standard method of operation has been well documented over the years. As happened with DR-DOS, Java, and Netscape, among other examples, Microsoft:
1. Allows their own product to stagnate for years.
2. Finally notices when another company starts to succeed with a new or improved technology.
3. Copies the new or improved technology (sometimes buys it, but often steals it, hence the lawsuits).
4. Fails to succeed with their often-second-rate copy.
5. Finally resorts to sabotaging the other company, through FUD, payoffs, polluting standards, and so on.
6. Gets a slap on the wrist from the courts. Pays a fine. Profit!
Microsoft's greatest innovation is their strategy for stealing technology. Microsoft always starts out by forming a partnership, or at least entering into negotiations with the other company, before stealing that company's technology. That way, the criminal courts never get involved, and no one at Microsoft ends up going to jail. Instead, the case always goes to civil court, where the worst Microsoft is likely to face is a fine. Microsoft is a master at manipulating the law.
I said that the evidence is frequently posted. Here is where you can read some of it:
The DOJ case against Microsoft - Findings of Fact:
For example, this quote showing how Microsoft blackmailed Apple:
> Gates informed those Microsoft executives most closely involved in the negotiations with Apple that the discussions "have not been going well at all." One of the several reasons for this, Gates wrote, was that "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office...."
Or these quotes from Microsoft's James Allchin:
> I don't understand how IE is going to win. The current path is simply to copy everything that Netscape does packaging and product wise. Let's [suppose] IE is as good as Navigator/Communicator. Who wins? The one with 80% market share.
> Pitting browser against browser is hard since Netscape has 80% marketshare and we have 20%.... I am convinced we have to use Windows -- this is the one thing they don't have.... We have to be competitive with features, but we need something more -- Windows integration. If you agree that Windows is a huge asset, then it follows quickly that we are not investing sufficiently in finding ways to tie IE and Windows together.
Also, read the parts about the ways Microsoft "encouraged" companies to break their contracts with Netscape, about how Microsoft threatened Intel to get them to stop working on Java, and so on.
Sun's lawsuit against Microsoft over Java:
This is a classic case of Microsoft attempting to copy/steal another company's product, then sabotaging that company's version of it.
For example, there is this memo about a meeting with Bill Gates:
> When I met with you last, you had a lot of pretty pointed questions about Java, so I want to make sure I understand your issues/concerns...
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.
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.
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
I don't care for opportunism, but it's legal.
Collusion to suppress competition is not.
I don't understand how breaking the law is OK if the victim is unsavory or distasteful. That smacks of putting emotion ahead of reason.
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/topics/antitrus
The emphasis is mine.
The definition of monopoly in anti-trust suits in the US comes from US law on the matter, not the Webster definition that applies to general situations.
Maybe we can redefine ad0gg to jackass.
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?
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
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.
If I had my way, you'd get Karma points for acknowleding your error. Classy move.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
They requested to look at Go's code so that Windows could 'support it better'. After that, they announced a vaporware version of Go, and as soon as Go was out of business dropped their own pen product.
So they clearly used their OS monopoly (you needed your pen to work on windows) to feed their application group code to make at least a rough version of the same product. Definitely abusing their os monopoly to further extend their application monopoly. Those are the facts of the case I'm interested, not a message from Bill Gates, but the actions of many separate divisions in MS consipiring against a potential competitor.
The only thing that came along that was better was OS/2, and IBM made the fatal mistake of making it incompatible with Win32 and Windows drivers (which meant no software).
BS. MS made a point of breaking compatibility with OS/2 with successive releases of WIN32S.DLL, until they finally added a new call to allocate memory...that always allocated memory outside the 512 megabyte range that OS/2 DOS sessions permitted. The 512 megabyte limit was a sufficiently basic design decision that IBM gave up (though the limitation was gotten rid of late in Warp 4, long after it mattered). If you want RAM, does it matter to an application where it is? No. The sole purpose of the call was to make it extremely difficult to maintain compatibility.
Go made two big mistakes. One was negotiating with Microsoft, and the other was partnering with AT&T. Back then, AT&T was trying to figure out what to do after deregulation. There was an AT&T PC (running UNIX, no less), AT&T minicomputers (running on 48VDC, just like telco gear), and for a brief period, AT&T retail computer stores. AT&T insisted that Go port their system over to some wierd AT&T CPU, which they did. Then they had some designer firm design a cool-looking but inconvenient case for the thing, with plastic plug-on modules on the side.
The prototype was better than the "production version".
...at least AFAIK. I read Jerry Kaplan's book and in there the company is called "Go Corporation," or "Go Corp" for short... NEVER is it called "Go Computer."
Search for either of those names or for "PenPoint" (the name of their first tablet and its OS) returns quite a few pages.
~Philly
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.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
- It's a vehicle for the casual reader to contribute. Maybe some only read occasionally, and/or don't feel that they'd be in a position to contribute something very often, so they haven't bothered to create an account. There are times when an AC post is the among the most thorough and insightful in a particular discussion.
- It has legitimate uses for people with accounts, too, under the umbrella of protecting against gratutituous karma destruction, if not outright moderation abuse:
- For responding to a slight tangent, like here, without getting dinked by an overzealous moderator. I enjoy occasional interesting diversions from what is stricly the topic at hand. This a good place for geeks to make even side points, and socialize a little, among other geeks where we know there's a good chance we'll actually be understood. Some moderators are just much more uptight about this.
- For stating a valid opinion that is not necessarily aligned with politically correct thought as represented by the masses on this site. Unpopular opinions are still technically capable of providing insight, and I find often do here. So I read at -1, and have done so for a long time now. Remove the AC account and those of us who can actually tolerate divergent views, and sometimes even appreciate them, will be deprived of this preference and the attraction of this site will diminish among such. The hive mind here is already quite excessive, but if literally only PC opinions were allowed to be seen here, that's only the kind of people that would come here, and there'd literally be nothing but perpetual redundant "preaching to the choir".
- For posting something humorous, to protect against genetic defectives born without a sense of humor. A little light-heartedness can liven up and refresh a serious discussion. I like to laugh at just about anything, and can appreciate even humor that insults my politics or religion or my mother etc., IF it's funny. But some overly-sensitive malcontents with mod points are quick to fly into a rage over any little thing and down-mod something.
So I shudder when I see someone suggest getting rid of the AC account, kind of like when I hear it suggested that maybe we should just immediately abandon Iraq, or get rid of the Electoral College, or surrender more rights under the guise of homeland security. There are sometimes actually very good reasons for things being the way they are.Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100