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? "
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
If you had RTFA, you would see that this case has nothing to do with IP. Letters surfaced in a different lawsuit which proves beyond a doubt that Bill Gates himself asked Andy Grove not to invest in Go, and that Bill viewed any investment in Go as "Anti-Microsoft", in Billy's own words. Sounds pretty anti-competitive and collusive to me.
Kaplan is hardly a kook. He is claiming that new information has come out in the recent antitrust trials, in particular, that Gates pushed Intel into dropping plans to invest in Go.
``I guess I've made it very clear that we view an Intel investment in Go as an anti-Microsoft move, both because Go competes with our systems software and because we think it will weaken the 386 PC standard. . . I'm asking you not to make any investment in Go Corporation,''
In his book, Startup, Kaplan describes how they shared trade secrets with Microsoft, something they were not keen on doing, but Microsoft promised to set a "Chinese wall" between their app division and the OS division, so only the applications people would know and that they'd be able to produce software in support of Go. In this excerpt from Startup, Kaplan details how Microsoft's app division made us of confidential information Go had shared with them to create Pen Windows, which, even as vapourware, effectively killed Go.
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
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 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