Slashdot Mirror
MS-DOS Not Stolen, New Forensic Analysis Concludes
theodp writes "Challenging earlier assertions that Bill Gates got the rewards due Gary Kildall, a forensic analysis conducted for the latest issue of IEEE Spectrum concludes that the landmark MS-DOS operating system which Bill Gates and Microsoft licensed to IBM was an original piece of work, not stolen goods. Using his company's CodeSuite forensic software, Bob Zeidman said he found no evidence that QDOS or MS-DOS was copied from or was a derivative of Gary Kildall's CP/M. So, what do you think of Microsoft expert witness (pdf) Zeidman's "if-the-codebase-doesn't-fit-you-must-acquit" arguments?"
More likely CodeSuite is right.
I know everyone wants to believe the story that a devious Bill Gates simply changed the copyright message on a copy of CP/M and re-released it, but there are numerous issues with the story:
- CP/M is tiny. Really, really, small. And has a well documented API. Anyone conversant in 808x assembler can put together a clone in a matter of days. This isn't an academic statement, I put together one myself for a A Level Computer Science course in the 1980s when I wrote a "CP/M emulator" for the Sinclair QL as my final project. (Appropriately the Sinclair QL's native operating system is also called QDOS. Go figure.)
- QDOS wasn't even a direct clone. The largest - or at least most complex - component of CP/M is the file system - almost everything else is an almost 1:1 call to a BIOS routine. And QDOS didn't have CP/M's file system - it used FAT, not the somewhat inefficient CP/M system which, IIRC, required scanning the entire directory to determine where the free sectors were. So even if someone had started off with a copy of CP/M and directly ported it, 90% of it or more would have had to be rewritten to produce QDOS.
The stories of Gary Kildall typing in some obscure set of keystrokes causing a copy of PC DOS to announce that it was actually CP/M - haha! - always struck me as improbable, and the fact they only appeared in dubious sources several years after this had supposedly happened makes me think the stories are outright fabrications. That doesn't mean there weren't potential copyright issues, and I suspect most of the stories of IBM somehow settling with DR over the similarities have some elements of truth - but this is because this was the early eighties, the era of Pacman lawsuits, to be followed a few years later by Apple's infamous look and feel suits against DR and Microsoft/HP.
In terms of actual code being copied however - no. It would, arguably, have taken more work to translate CP/M into 8086 assembler and then make all of the changes necessary to turn it into QDOS than it would to write QDOS from scratch. QDOS had a similar API, and a similar but not identical shell. Otherwise it wasn't remotely similar.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Those accusations still sound like sour grapes from Gary Kildall. The Microsoft - IBM deal was genius. Gary sounds upset he did not have the foresight to make it happen. He had his chance. Heck, MS even suggested that IBM talk to Gary and the CPM guys when they were looking for an operating system. But, Gary refused to play ball. Too bad.
So, Microsoft stepped up to the plate. They bought QDOS, worked with it and wrote MS-DOS. Sure, it was not an extraordinary operating system. But it wasn't terrible, and it worked like CP/M in a lot of ways because MS certainly took ideas from CP/M. That's perfectly OK (maybe not these days, software patents etc...) They were giving IBM and their customers what they wanted when Gary and Digital Research decided not to. That's the genius of Microsoft. Realizing the spectacular deal to be had and standing up to IBM to sign an agreement that would make them the biggest software company ever; keeping ownership of their software, regardless of how much big blue pushed them around. Sorry Gary, you missed out.
Lastly, I doubt the young Bill Gates would hypocritically allow his company to stoop to coping code after he wrote this and sent it to many of his future customers:
The system calls and lots of the design are clearly cloned. Anyone who used both CP/M and MS-DOS back in the day and who dabbled in assembly language programming on both would be able to spot it.
If the software industry had been as rife with patents (both functional and design) and other litigation tools back then as it is today, Microsoft wouldn't have gotten away with this particular way of copying.
(Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is left as an exercise for the reader.)
Was it a rip-off of CP/M? Absolutely. QDOS implemented calls identically to CP/M with the specific aim of being as close to CP/M as possible. In other words, as Patterson him self said, he read through Kildalls manual and tried to create something that functioned identically.
And also (as finally confirmed in the Google-Oracle case) copying an API is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Gate's bought the DOS operating system and sold IBM a License. He didn't sell them the damn code.
Because of this, I have to wonder why everyone is suprised that MS Wants you to License Windows instead of buying it.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
What we KNEW is that Gates lied about having an OS ready to IBM, knowing of QDOS
Why are people so angry that Microsoft fulfilled a promise that it made? Gates said something to the effect of "I can get an OS just give me a few days" and that's exactly what he did. What's the problem? At least he followed through. How's HURD coming along?
and subsequently swindled QDOS from its creator, to fulfill his contract with IBM.
Swindled, lol. Let's be real, without Gates, Patterson would not have made money, not even the initial ~$100k he got from Microsoft, and no one would have ever heard of him. Yeah, Microsoft made a ton of money off the product by they also invested in it beyond the buyout and shouldered a ton of risk.
Now nothing was illegal - but my god. What a complete lack of any decent human characteristic.
I'm no Bill Gates fan, but that's a hard case to make. He had information that both IBM and Brock lacked, and without that information, Brock might never have made any money on the product. There's no denying that his mother's connections to IBM folks made that happen for him, but he was the essential link in the chain (even if not a very talented one). It's those essential connections where profit happens.
Gates gave SCP a decent payday (explicitly an acceptable price to Brock) and then gave Patterson a job three times, and bought Patterson's company from him. Heck, Patterson was such an early Microsoft employee that he could have made (did make?) a killing on its stock. SCP made healthy independent profits riding on the coattails of Microsoft's IBM-PC success, but then sued them for more profits, which only wound up in a settlement. Since we're judging all this in hindsight, Brock would have been better off joining Microsoft with Patterson if he wanted to share in its profits.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
From a WSJ review of Paul Allen's biography:
Past histories of Microsoft have said Mr. Allen's departure from the company was sparked by his first brush with cancer in 1982, when he was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease.
In that year, Mr. Allen says he eavesdropped on a discussion in the Microsoft offices in Bellevue, Wash., between Mr. Gates and Steve Ballmer, now the company's CEO, in which he heard the two men talking about Mr. Allen's recent lack of productivity and how they might dilute his equity in the company by issuing options to themselves and other shareholders. Mr. Allen said he burst into the room and confronted Messrs. Gates and Ballmer, both of whom later apologized to him and backed down from their plan.
"I had helped start the company and was still an active member of management, though limited by my illness, and now my partner and my colleague were scheming to rip me off," he says in the book. "It was mercenary opportunism, plain and simple."
.
A spokesman for Microsoft said Mr. Ballmer had no comment.
Earlier efforts by Mr. Gates to whittle down his partner's stake in Microsoft were successful though, according to Mr. Allen.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Gates, at the time, did NOT know how much DOS was going to be worth
OK, good, there's our problem and the source of our confusion. People have roundly condemned this deal because Gates knew EXACTLY how much DOS was going to be worth, down to the last dollar. What people have found so morally objectionable is that Gates already had the deal with IBM lined up by virtue of his mother's influence, and that he low-balled Kildall when Kildall did not know the entire story. Gates didn't look at Kildall's work and think, "Hmm, I bet I could sell this to someone," buy the program, take the risk, and then find a customer. People condemn this deal because Gates gave Kildall a haircut when there was NO risk, and by taking Kildall for a ride he would never have agreed to had everything been done aboveboard.
People pair this story with the Woz's "Breakout" story, where Steve Jobs got Wozniak to work four days straight to finish "Breakout," without telling him that Atari was offering a $5,000 bonus. Woz finished the work, Steve pocketed the money.
Neither story shows Gates or Jobs in a flattering light, and sometimes "being a sharp businessman" is just code for being a lousy human being.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."