Current Owner of BeOS Code Claims Zeta is Illegal

Hank Powers writes "The legal status of the Zeta operating system that was derived from the source code Be Inc. left shortly before going bankrupt has been unclear for several years. Now, the current owner of the source code, ACCESS, claims "if Herr Korz feels that he holds a legitimate license to the BeOS code he's been using, we're completely unaware of it, and I'd be fascinated to see him produce any substantiation for that claim". The sales of Zeta have been suspended and so has the development been halted as well. OSNews has an article about the recent developments."

Comments

Nothing to see here, yadda yadda...

[pla]

Now, the current owner of the source code, ACCESS, claims "if Herr Korz feels that he holds a legitimate license to the BeOS code he's been using, we're completely unaware of it, and I'd be fascinated to see him produce any substantiation for that claim".

Perhaps some insider can make this issue more clear (yes, I R'd TFA), but this seems like a non-issue. As I understand it...

This company ACCESS legitimately owns the rights to BeOS. Korz/YellowTAB never had any right to continue work on it as Zeta, and may even have started the project based on leaked source code. But PalmSource never cared, and YellowTAB never bothered doing more than sending nastygrams every few months, probably because they saw no possible financial incentive to do so.

So overall, this sounds an awfully lot like ACCESS has zero interest in BeOS/Zeta(/Haiku?), but their lawyers have advised them to send a periodic reminder of "oh, BTW, we own this", just so they can eat the whole thing on the off chance it ever becomes commercially viable.



So... Why does this count as news? It seems like just the status quo for the past six years, nothing new here.

Re:Nothing to see here, yadda yadda...

[tverbeek]

The fact that sales of Zeta have been suspended because of this makes it news.

This is definitely bad news for fans of BeOS. If there's a silver lining, hopefully it will spur more support for Haiku, which as an open-source project is immune from a company deciding to sit on a useful OS instead of letting others maintain and improve on it.

Re:Nothing to see here, yadda yadda...

[pla]

All that's happened is that finally you've been chosen for shipment to Cuba

Yeah, but that represents a real threat, since we have more people in Guantanimo than BeOS/Zeta has users. ;-)



/ joking, for the humor impaired.
// I think...

Re:Nothing to see here, yadda yadda...

[malsdavis]

For info: the Haiku website is http://haiku-os.org/

Re:Nothing to see here, yadda yadda...

[iminplaya]

If we're going to treat IP as real property, then we need laws against speculation. "Use it or lose it" is what we should be demanding. Same goes for the Alpha chip. When the question of why we still use x86 was asked a while ago, the answer should have been clear right away. "It's the law."

Access Microsoft

[Doc Ruby]

Access, the company now stifling innovation with the dormant BeOS code, is also the Japanese mobile phone corporate giant that bought out PalmOS, lying about offering a smartphone running Linux with a PalmOS GUI/compatibility layer.

Funny how they keep spending money on OS'es that they never profit from. Their mission seems to be to kill OS'es that have a chance to innovate around Microsoft's monopoly. I wonder whether their license to deploy Windows phones in Japan was contingent on doing that kind of Microsoft dirty work, perhaps even secretly funded (or subsidized) by Microsoft.

Re:Access Microsoft

[Rob the Bold]

Access, the company now stifling innovation with the dormant BeOS code, is also the Japanese mobile phone corporate giant that bought out PalmOS, lying about offering a smartphone running Linux with a PalmOS GUI/compatibility layer.

This is a good example of why we need a way to pry IP out of the hands of organizations that buy it just to stifle it. One could argue that Intellectual Property is just like any property and an owner can make use of it or not to its own pleasure. However, IP is different. IP not really something you own: it is a license (or privilege) to exclusive production. The term "Intellectual Property" itself is misleading, and cooked up to create the illusion that it is something to be owned like a tool, or a piece of land.

In fact, the U.S. Constitution (e.g.) clearly states the purpose for granting such privileges:

The Congress shall have Power . . .

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

This clearly illustrates the purpose of patents, trademarks and copyrights, which is to encourage publication or production of works and products for the benefit of all by giving the creator the ability to exclusively profit from their publication or production. It's a mutually beneficial deal, an agreement between the general public and creators of useful works. If the creator decides not to produce the protected work, then the public gains nothing. One doesn't get exclusive license just to sit on their discoveries. At some point of non-production, the protection should expire early.

Re:Access Microsoft

[Doc Ruby]

lying about offering a smartphone running Linux with a PalmOS GUI/compatibility layer.

Obviously you didn't read the article to which you linked:

Access says ALP 1.0's task-oriented user interface builds on the "legendary" usability of the original Palm OS user interface.
[...]
Also planned for later release is a "Garnet VM Compatibility Kit" which appears to represent the final frontier for Palm OS. Together, the SDK and Garnet VM will provide an upgrade path for hundreds of thousands of Palm OS application developers, Access says.

In other words, no PalmOS on their Linux phone. They've been "planning" it for years. They announced they'd be releasing it in 2006. 2007 will be at least half over, and they'll still be "planning" it. Liars.

Wishing doesn't make it so, for you either.

Re:Access Microsoft

[mcbridematt]

PalmSource (who ACCESS bought) wasn't really involved directly with the BeOS purchase, it was purchased before Handspring was acquired and the company was split IIRC.

And when PalmSource did release their new Palm OS (Cobalt), despite a subsequent revision, supposedly at the request of Palm OS licensees, it died because PalmOne (current day "Palm Inc.") weren't interested in the OS they paid for in the first place. No one else wanted to launch an OS clearly superior to PalmOS 5, WinCE and probably the Linux mobile offerings of the day and Cobalt died a silent death.
All the licenses bar Palm Inc, and GSPDA didn't launch any further devices, only one has joined (Jaina) and launched since, leading to M$ dominating, not by monopoly, but because they actually have a clue how to co-operate with licensees - not to mention a programming environment which doesn't niche market industry programmers running.
PalmSource, realizing this, bought China MobileSoft to concentrate on Linux phones, then was bought by ACCESS, *after Palm lost the bidding race for the IP it use to own*, who, presumably, believes the future is high-end mass-market phones.

Now we have a situation where Palm Inc is selling Windows Mobile based devices as a sheer result on stupidity by Ed Colligan and Co after Handspring and Palm merged.

For those who didn't read: ACCESS doesn't have that much to do with the lack of a legal, original BeOS based environment. Palm Inc. paid for it, split, killed it by proxy, ACCESS doesn't want anything to do with it other than any concrete IP.

Re:Access Microsoft

[Doc Ruby]

Patent owners should indeed have to prove they are using their "temporary" synthetic monopoly to promote the progress of science or the useful arts by producing the invention, not just sitting on it. That is in fact a parallel to the more sensible trademark rules, which require use of the mark, and active confrontation with diluters. Because trademark's governing "Lanham Act" is designed to protect the consumer from confusion, to protect commerce, not just profitmaking.

Further, patents should register their costs in development of the patent, not just the product after the patent, and expire the patent once either the time or a multiple ROI is reached. The ROI should be a maximum of 10x (probably even just 2x, but actual research and ongoing parameters should establish the precise ROI that promotes). And the time should be per-industry, with software/IT times governed more by Moore's Law and software obsolescence studies. Software itself is obviously (to anyone but greedheads) copyright, not patent, material.

The whole system is rotten. But if it were tweaked a little, pared back to its justifiable framework, it could form the basis for a system that actually promotes the progress that justifies the monopoly in conflict with expression freedom.

Re:Access Microsoft

[Doc Ruby]

The other big case the Clinton Department of Justice won against a monopoly/cartel was against Big Tobacco. It's now coming to light that Bush's Justice Department interfered with the followthru. As part of their now obvious process of coporatizing the Justice Department to serve monopolies like Microsoft. I expect it's only a matter of time before we learn how Bush deliberately ditched the MS monopoly judgement. His favorite lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, got his lobbyist career started at Preston, Gates, Bill Gates III's father's law firm. I expect there's a lot more to the story, all bad.

Re:Access Microsoft

[Doc Ruby]

Well, you've been perfectly civil. I attack people only as counterattack. And I treat ACs with pure contempt only when they hide behind the AC to make uncivil posts themselves. All too common, but I never start the dirty fighting - I just finish it.

I have these discussions and arguments online to sharpen them. The dirty fighting I do for fun, but I prefer the clean debate, if it's available. Just not enough to enforce cleanliness when it goes dirty.

I'm glad we had the chance to compare notes.

I saw this happen once in my neighborhood

[jpellino]

Well, not exactly, it was actually two terriers fighting over a dry chicken bone.

Nostalgia

[BillGatesLoveChild]

Oh for the days when Programmers didn't need to double major in Law.

Re:Nostalgia

[BillGatesLoveChild]

Was commenting more on the number of legal stories. I just want to write code, man:

"Bobby, can I use a linked list for a one-click web site?"
"No Daddy, they're patented. And don't try a triple linked list. They're patented too"
"But Bobby, a patent must be novel, obvious and useful!"
"Don't get my started Daddy. I still have to read my RIAA Preschooler Education Kit. Say that CD has a Sharpie Label. Bad Daddy, Bad!"

Owner of the code - but they're not using it!

[billcopc]

It's funny how Access owns the code, yet they're not doing a damned thing with it. They've halted distribution of a product that isn't competing with their business, and if history is any indicator, they aren't ever going to release any BeOS-related software ever. They are an IP company, they buy stuff up, sit on it for a while then license/resell to actual inventors and manufacturers for a profit. This kind of business is one the most revolting abuses of the 21st century, because all they do is kidnap information for a ransom, potentially hiding it away forever if no buyer comes along to pay their inflated price. This type of activity precisely underlines the need for patent reform. This doesn't help anyone except the people cashing the checks, ultimately IP-hoarding hurts everyone as it stymies technological progress. BeOS had some great concepts ten years ago, but through the company's pitfalls and this now legal bullshit, the then-modern real-time paradigm is now grossly outdated. Why don't we all go out and buy all the fresh fruits at the market, then sit on them for a few years and see what's left of them ? It's a waste, it's stupid and it's inconsiderate. Access is all those bad things!

Re:Owner of the code - but they're not using it!

[bigpat]

All those things might be useful, but there should be a clearer abandonment clause to IP. If you aren't producing products and actually selling them, or using IP in your publications for say a period of 5 years, then you should lose the exclusive right... 'Use it or lose it' should be the law of the land. It actually used to be part of the law for copyright in the US, but it was stripped out in favor of less red tape. But I don't think there needs to be red tape, like there was with registration with Library of Congress, companies should simply keep and make records of their use of IP in their business so when challenged they have to provide records. Sure the law could be little more than a nuisance if it is not written properly, but it should make it clear that the products must be purchased by persons independent of the company or if the IP is in support of a product or service then it must be actively published and distributed (even if not sold) also to persons independent of the company.

Re:Owner of the code - but they're not using it!

[tji]

They own the code. They can do whatever they want with it.

I was a big fan of BeOS. I went to their first demo-tour in Ann Arbor, way back when. I never bought a dual processor PowerPC BeBox, but I did install and use it once it became available for intel. So, I think their letting BeOS whither and die is a HUGE waste of all that good code, with incredible multimedia capabilities and many other advances that are still not met in Mac OS or Linux (and certainly not Windows).

When they were negotiating with Apple, I was ready to make the jump to Mac OS. (I eventually moved to Mac OS (NeXTStep based), after a while, because it was the best available desktop OS). When Palm bought the code, I was ready to more to using Palm devices. But, since they never released a product based on it, I never bought a Palm.

I, too would love to see a BeOS operating system available. But, it's their code. They are under no responsibility to release it, allow other people to benefit from it, or release the code. Such is life.

Re:Owner of the code - but they're not using it!

[Britz]

Actually BeOS went down because of the lack of apps. Adobe never ported Photoshop and Steinberg never ported Cubase even though there was talk about both. Maybe a company with a fruit as its logo had something to do with the Photoshop port never coming through, but I dunno, maybe some other Slashdotter can shed some light on the history of BeOS.

With the current free software that rivals proprietary software in both quality and features in many fields and that seems to be made for porting fringe operating systems seem to stand a much better chance. Just look at Ubuntu. Personally I am running Debian as my desktop OS.

Parent may not be right about Access being responsible for the downfall of BeOS, but now, that BeOS actually may have a chance (I heard that Firefox was ported for example) they may be responsible for it never coming back.

Re:Access Microsoft-It's conspiracy time.

[Doc Ruby]

That's why I live in the US. Where I was born, so I don't compromise on my freedom. Some other Americans have no excuse for such compromises.

Funny how I submitted this on Wednesday evening...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and it only appears now....

Gotta love slashdot. I also seem to have recalled explaining a few more things in my summary that would have prevented the fringe element from heading off into conspiracy land as well....

First off, the reason why ACCESS is only *now* responding on this issue is because Korz was making overtures towards open sourcing the code--something that ACCESS could not keep silent about. As Lefty says in his comments both at bitsofnews and OSNews.com, they'd been sending cease and desist letters for some time already and Korz was ignoring them. To try and take legal action would be only to invite lawsuits over code that ACCESS saw no income from; so why should they stick out their necks for a libel suit with the possibility of generating only negative income? It is only because ACCESS wanted to prevent any possibility of Korz giving away their property they chose to risk the possible libel suit now.

Secondly, 'Zeta' was a dead parrot. It was NOT truly being developed, because obviously Korz did NOT have access (pun unintended) to the source code or he would have done more with it. The only true successor to BeOS is Haiku, which as I stated in my summary is nearing its 1.0 release with all originally developed closed-room re-engineered code that is BeOS R5 compatible.

Third, BeOS Max PE which is developed by a Greek coder to be the best and most updated (using bits of third party hacks and including newer drivers for more hardware as well as bits of Haiku that work better than the old BeOS parts) may be forced to discontinue development. This is something that would be a tragedy, since it is thanks to Vaspar's work on this (free) project many of us are able to run BeOS on new hardware. And I say that as someone who bought BeOS in the store almost a month or two before the announcement they were going bankrupt.

--bornagainpenguin

Re:open-source project is immune

[despisethesun]

Legally, there is a difference because Haiku does not use any BeOS code. It is a binary-compatible reimplementation, not a derivative work. The relationship between Haiku and BeOS is similar to the relationship between Linux and Unix. On the surface they look similar and work similar, but under the hood they are very different animals.

Re:open-source project is immune

[be-fan]

He didn't say open source projects are immune to IP litigation. He said that they are immune to what happened to BeOS (and tons of other cool software) --- having a company sit on perfectly good code without any intention of either continuing it as a product or freeing it so the community can continue development.

Re:open-source project is immune

[nurb432]

And beacuse its open source it means it magically cant be infected with other peoples IP?

Re:open-source project is immune

[tverbeek]

There's a huge difference between a developer walking away with the source code of a semi-popular piece of software so no one else can use it (the scenario we're talking about), and a saboteur sneaking proprietary source code into an open-source project and getting it shut down (the scenario you're imagining). If you want to talk about the latter, go ahead and find a discussion where it's relevant.

Re:He Who Controls the Bootloader

[snuf23]

I ran the Intel flavor of BeOS. If you think BeOS had a chance and the only reason it died was because of MS, I think you are mistaken.
Most people are application oriented not OS oriented. If their apps don't run on a given OS they don't want it. Period.

I'm surprised people consider BeOS to have value

[argent]

Several years back when I had the chance to try out the various versions of BeOS on the hardware available at that time, it wasn't significantly better than its contemproraries. The file system was interesting, but having applications depend on features of the file system is a great way to create a software ghetto, like the Mac was before OS X: metadata about the file belongs in the file system. Metadata about the contents of the file belongs in files. The object oriented API might have been interesting, but it was too heavily based on an oddball OO language that was particularly hard to work with: C++. The kernel was intended to be part of a "Media OS", but it didn't make any attempt to provide real-time support.

There were some nice features in the shell (Tracker), but they could have been implemented on a conventional OS.

Performance was poor. The only OS it outperformed on the same hardware was the classic Mac OS... Windows, Windows NT, OpenStep, and open source UNIX were all faster. Of course the contemporary Mac OS was near its nadir of performance.

When the rumors of Apple picking it up, I was somewhat hopeful... it was definitely better than what they had.

When Palm picked it up I was horrified. Palm's existing OS was far better suited for the PDA, and it was looking like Palm was going to end up with some really nice and cheap handhelds... if yo could get a Palm to retail for under $50 (a target they could have easily met and suprassed by now) everyone would be using them in high school instead of calculators, and they'd have no competition. But instead of doing what they did best, they decided to go after Microsoft on Microsoft's turf... and went from an easily-maintained 80% of the handheld market to "who's going to buy them"?

BeOS? It's a poison pill. The Amiga of the '90s, without the virtue of EVER having had a hope in hell.