|
|
| For History's Sake: Paterson v. Little Brown |
 |
|
Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 04:22 PM EDT
|
Do you remember the anecdote about the discussion about whether QDOS was derived from CP/M and Gary Kildall, the author of CP/M, suggesting that someone should ask Bill Gates why function code 6 ends in a dollar sign? The author of QDOS, Tim Paterson, was deposed in litigation he recently initiated, and they asked him about that, and now history has its answer, as you can see from this snip from the defendants' motion for summary judgment:
Thirteen years before the Book was published, Mr. Kildall was quoted in a newspaper article as saying: "Ask Bill why function code 6 (in DOS) ends with a dollar sign . . . . No one in the world knows that but me." James Wallace & Jim Erickson, Bill Gates: Of Mind and Money, Seattle P-I, May 8, 1991... In his January 2007 deposition, Mr. Paterson conceded that function 9 was terminated with a "$" sign only "because that was what was in the manual. They published a manual; the manual said put a dollar sign at the end. So I followed the manual." Paterson Dep. at 130:11-131:9.
You may have read about this case, Paterson et al v. Little Brown and Company et al, in The Register. I did, and after reading some of the documents, I decided that for the sake of history, it would be worthwhile to put the docket's main filings up on Groklaw of case number 2:05-cv-01719-TSZ.
At issue in this case was a chapter in the book They Made America, by Sir Harold Evans and published in 2004 by Little Brown, that said this about Kildall: "Gary Kildall: He saw the future and made it work. He was the true founder of the personal computer revolution and the father of PC software." The book also stated that QDOS was a clone of CP/M. Evans and his publisher got sued by Tim Paterson over it. A suit for defamation, no less, false light and invasion of privacy. You can read the plaintiff's position by reading the Complaint [PDF]. For the defendants' side, you can read the Motion for Summary Judgment [PDF]. The court has now ruled in favor of the defendants. While it is conceivable that there will be an appeal, at this point, this court has decided the history of DOS and Dr. Kildall's role in it. And the case is Exhibit A proving the theory that defamation lawsuits rarely are a good idea.
There is an interesting side story. Dr. Lee Hollaar was an expert for the plaintiff.
Here's part of what Hollaar told the court in his expert report:
9. In my opinion, the defendants have taken demonstrably-false statements and quotes from people without first-hand knowledge of the relationship between CP/M and QDOS, put them in a context that compounds their effect with respect to Mr. Paterson's work, and failed to subject the work for Mr. Kildall to the same standards, all to support the thesis of the chapter that Mr. Kildall was the "Edison of computers" who was "ripped off" in part by Mr. Patterson's illegal or immoral activities.
The defense then hired Gary Nutt as its expert to rebut Hollaar, and here's part of his own summary of his expert report: A. Expert Report Summary
4. Dr. Gary Kildall created the first successful Operating System (OS) Control Program/Monitor (CPM) for a microprocessor.
5. CP/M defined a market that stimulated independent software development, inexpensive development platforms, and the proliferation of inexpensive application programs for inexpensive computers.
6. Dr. Kildall developed the Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) approach to designing small computer operating systems. This design was used in 86-DOS and its descendants.
7. At the time that Mr. Paterson developed the initial version of 86-DOS, he had no credentials for designing an OS, and used Dr. Kildalls CP/M design to direct the implementation of 86-DOS....
11. Sir Harold Evans' use of the term clone was qualified and accurately describes how 86-DOS compared to CP/M.
12. Mr. Paterson is unable to prove that 86-DOS did not copy algorithms, data structures, and other trade secrets and confidential information incorporated in the CP/M program.
Whereupon the plaintiff moved to exclude Nutt's report (for alleged lateness) and his testimony.
The court however ruled in favor of the defendants on July 25: The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 13, on each of Plaintiff’s claims. This case is dismissed. The Register article explains the overview well. In granting their motion for summary judgment the judge explained his reasons for ruling as he did, and here is one of the fundamental ones -- truth is a complete defense to any defamation claim: Summary judgment plays a “particularly important role” in defamation
cases:
Serious problems regarding the exercise of free speech and free press
guaranteed by the First Amendment are raised if unwarranted lawsuits
are allowed to proceed to trial. The chilling effect of the pendency of
such litigation can itself be sufficient to curtail the exercise of these
freedoms.
Mark, 96 Wn.2d at 485 (internal quotations omitted). Defendants urge that Plaintiff cannot
present a prima facie case for defamation and ask the Court to grant summary judgment in
their favor.
1.
Truth and Privilege.
It is for the Court to determine whether a statement is capable of defamatory meaning.
Hoppe v. Hearst Corp., 53 Wn.App. 668, 672 (1989). “Defamatory meaning may not be
imputed to true statements.”Lee v. The Columbian, Inc., 64 Wn.App. 534, 538 (1991). Put
differently, the truth is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation.Ward v. Painters’
Local Union No. 300, 41 Wn.2d 859, 865 (1953).
[A] defamation defendant need not prove the literal truth of every
claimed defamatory statement. A defendant need only show that the
statement is substantially true or that the gist of the story, the portion
that carries the “sting,” is true.
The court carefully considered the book's claims and decided they were not actionable. In some cases, he found that the plaintiff had overstated matters. I haven't had time to read the documents yet carefully enough to even have a personal opinion on the computer history, except to say that the court has ruled as it has. Personally, I think folks *should* build on each others' software and share and share alike, because software is knowledge, and shared knowledge is a good thing. That's why I'm a GPL girl myself. I know others disagree, but in any case, one thing I'm sure of: history has value in its own right. For that reason, I am providing the significant documents so historians will have them to work with.
Sir Harold Evans, in his deposition said, "History is a process of constant revision." What I do have an opinion on is defamation lawsuits. They usually do backfire, just as this one has. Why? Because they're hard to prove, unless you can prove something was untrue, negative, and in the case of a public figure deliberately or negligently untrue. So all you accomplish is that more people hear about the very claims you wish had never seen the light of day. But there's another vital issue in this case, one that the court was sensitive to. I'd like to highlight footnote 13 in the motion for summary judgment:
13 Under the law of Washington, summary judgment is also designed to serve the important First Amendment goal of eliminating the chilling effect of unwarranted defamation litigation.... (The public interest is best served by expeditious disposition of cases raising First Amendment issues.).
Amen. And happily, the court agreed. Bottom line? People are sometimes too quick to sue: The law of libel does not make actionable communications that are merely unflattering, annoying, irksome, or embarrassing, or that hurt[] only the plaintiffs feelings. 1 Robert D. Sack, Sack on Defamation § 2.4.1 (3rd ed. 2005). Additionally, [d]efamatory meaning may not be imputed to true statements.... The record shows that many of the statements at issue are indisputably true, supported by sworn and other statements by Mr. Paterson himself... To capture all the fine points of the case, you will need to read the order in full. You can read an article by Dr. Kildall on the history of CP/M on this Digital Research page, if history interests you. Here, then, is the docket, with the main documents.
*************************
History
Doc.
No. |
Dates |
Description |
|---|
| 1 |
| Filed: | 10/11/2005 |
| Entered: | 10/13/2005 |
|
Complaint |
| Docket Text: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION AND FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY against defendant(s) David Lefer, Little Brown and Company, Time Warner Book Group, Harold Evans Associates LLC, Harold Evans (NO Summons(es) issued) (Receipt # 320315 paid on 10/12/05) , filed by Tim Paterson, Penny Paterson. (Attachments: # (1) Civil Cover Sheet)(PM, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/14/2005: Email request to add new case (PM, ). Modified on 10/14/2005: to add copy of email and receipt number (PM, ).
|
| 2 |
| Filed & Entered: | 11/02/2005 | |
FORM - Joint Status Report Order |
| Docket Text: ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EARLY SETTLEMENT FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 12/19/2005.Initial Disclosure Deadline is 1/3/2006. Joint Status Report due by 1/3/2006; by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (GG, )
|
| 3 |
| Filed: | 11/09/2005 |
| Entered: | 11/10/2005 |
|
Praecipe for a Summons |
| Docket Text: PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS.Sms (5) in blank issued. (CL, )
|
| 4 |
| Filed & Entered: | 01/12/2006 | |
Notice of Appearance |
| Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Bruce EH Johnson on behalf of Defendants David Lefer, Little Brown and Company, Time Warner Book Group, Harold Evans Associates LLC, Harold Evans (Johnson, Bruce)
|
| 5 |
| Filed & Entered: | 01/13/2006 | |
Order to Show Cause |
| Docket Text: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - Counsel are directed to show cause by JANUARY 31, 2006 why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file a joint status report. (CC, )
|
| 6 |
| Filed & Entered: | 01/17/2006 | |
Notice of Attorney Association |
| Docket Text: NOTICE of Association of Attorney by Dietrich Biemiller on behalf of Plaintiffs Tim Paterson, Penny Paterson (Biemiller, Dietrich)
|
| 7 |
| Filed & Entered: | 01/30/2006 | |
Joint Status Report |
| Docket Text: JOINT STATUS REPORT filed by all parties. Est. Trial Days: 15. (Biemiller, Dietrich)
|
| 8 |
| Filed & Entered: | 02/02/2006 | |
Notice of Appearance |
| Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Kaustuv Mukul Das on behalf of Defendants David Lefer, Little Brown and Company, Time Warner Book Group, Harold Evans Associates LLC, Harold Evans (Das, Kaustuv)
|
| 9 |
| Filed & Entered: | 02/21/2006 | |
Minute Order Setting Trial Date and Related Dates |
| Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES, AND DESIGNATING CASE FOR MEDIATION; Length of Trial: *15 Days*. Mediation shall be completed no later than thirty (30) days prior to the trial date. Jury Trial is set for 9/17/2007 at 9:00 AM before Hon. Thomas S. Zilly. Joinder of Parties due by 5/15/2006; Amended Pleadings due by 3/21/2007; Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 3/21/2007; Motions due by 4/20/2007; Discovery completed by 5/21/2007; Dispositive motions due by 6/19/2007; Settlement conference to be held by 7/19/2007; 39.1 mediation to be completed by 8/20/2007; Motions in Limine due by 8/20/2007; Pretrial Order due by 9/5/2007; Pretrial Conference set for 9/7/2007 at 3:00 PM before Hon. Thomas S. Zilly. Trial briefs to be submitted by 9/12/2007; Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 9/12/2007; by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (GG, )
|
| 10 |
| Filed & Entered: | 05/16/2006 | |
Proposed Order (Unsigned) |
| Docket Text: PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) Stipulated Protective Order. (Johnson, Bruce)
|
| 11 |
| Filed & Entered: | 05/22/2006 | |
Protective Order |
| Docket Text: STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (LT, )
|
| 12 |
| Filed: | 01/04/2007 |
| Entered: | 01/05/2007 |
|
Affidavit of Service of Deposition Subpoena |
| Docket Text: DECLARATION OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA upon Harold Evans served on 1/2/2007, filed by Plaintiffs Tim Paterson, Penny Paterson. (LT, )
|
| 13 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/15/2007 | | Terminated: | 07/25/2007 | |
Motion for Summary Judgment |
| Docket Text: MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants David Lefer, Little Brown and Company, Time Warner Book Group, Harold Evans Associates LLC, Harold Evans. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment)Noting Date 4/6/2007.(Johnson, Bruce)
|
| 14 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/15/2007 | |
Declaration |
| Docket Text: DECLARATION of Kaustuv M. Das filed by Defendants David Lefer, Little Brown and Company, Time Warner Book Group, Harold Evans Associates LLC, Harold Evans re [13] MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A# (2) Exhibit B-F# (3) Exhibit G# (4) Exhibit H# (5) Exhibit I# (6) Exhibit J-L# (7) Exhibit M# (8) Exhibit N# (9) Exhibit O-Q# (10) Exhibit R-Z# (11) Exhibit AA-FF# (12) Exhibit GG-HH)(Johnson, Bruce)
|
| 15 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/15/2007 | |
Sealed Document |
| Docket Text: SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibit E to Das Declaration In Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants David Lefer, Little Brown and Company, Time Warner Book Group, Harold Evans Associates LLC, Harold Evans re [11] Protective Order. (Johnson, Bruce)
|
| 16 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/20/2007 | |
Notice of Motion Re-Noted |
| Docket Text: NOTICE that the following is RE-NOTED: [13] MOTION for Summary Judgment. Filed by Defendants David Lefer, Little Brown and Company, Time Warner Book Group, Harold Evans Associates LLC, Harold Evans. Noting Date 4/20/2007.(Das, Kaustuv)
|
| 17 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/20/2007 | |
Stipulation |
| Docket Text: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Extension of Certain Deadlines by parties. (Das, Kaustuv)
|
| 18 |
| Filed: | 03/23/2007 |
| Entered: | 03/26/2007 |
|
Stipulation and Order |
| Docket Text: STIPULATION AND ORDER re Extention of Certain Deadlines, by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 4/18/2007, Motions due by 5/4/2007. (CL, )
|
| 19 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/30/2007 | |
Notice of Appearance |
| Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Nigel Avilez on behalf of Defendants David Lefer, Little Brown and Company, Time Warner Book Group, Harold Evans Associates LLC, Harold Evans. (Avilez, Nigel)
|
| 20 |
| Filed & Entered: | 04/16/2007 | |
Response to Motion |
| Docket Text: RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Tim Paterson, to [13] MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # (1) Declaration of D. Michael Tomkins # (2) Declaration of Lee Hollaar # (3) Declaration of Tim Paterson # (4) Exhibit A,B, C, F, G)(Biemiller, Dietrich)
|
| 21 |
| Filed & Entered: | 04/16/2007 | |
Sealed Document |
| Docket Text: SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibits D, E by Plaintiff Tim Paterson re [11] Protective Order. (Biemiller, Dietrich)
|
| 22 |
| Filed & Entered: | 04/20/2007 | |
Reply to Response to Motion |
| Docket Text: REPLY, filed by Defendants David Lefer, Little Brown and Company, Time Warner Book Group, Harold Evans Associates LLC, Harold Evans, TO RESPONSE to [13] MOTION for Summary Judgment (Johnson, Bruce)
|
| 23 |
| Filed & Entered: | 04/20/2007 | |
Declaration |
| Docket Text: DECLARATION of Bruce E. H. Johnson filed by Defendants David Lefer, Little Brown and Company, Time Warner Book Group, Harold Evans Associates LLC, Harold Evans re [13] MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A-D to Johnson Declaration)(Johnson, Bruce)
|
| 24 |
| Filed & Entered: | 06/05/2007 | |
Notice of Change of Address |
| Docket Text: NOTICE of Change of Address of Attorney Nigel Avilez. Filed by Defendants David Lefer, Little Brown and Company, Time Warner Book Group, Harold Evans Associates LLC, Harold Evans. (Avilez, Nigel)
|
| 25 |
| Filed & Entered: | 06/13/2007 | | Terminated: | 07/25/2007 | |
Motion to Exclude |
| Docket Text: MOTION to Exclude Defendants' Expert Witness by Plaintiff Tim Paterson. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, Stipulation and Order Extending Dates# (2) Exhibit B, Defendants' Disclosure of Expert Witness # (3) Exhibit C, Report of Nutt # (4) Proposed Order)Noting Date 6/29/2007.(Biemiller, Dietrich)
|
| -- |
| Filed & Entered: | 06/15/2007 | |
Set/Reset Hearings |
| Docket Text: Set/Reset Hearings: In-court Hearing/Oral Argument set for MONDAY JULY 2, 2007 at 10:00 AM before Hon. Thomas S. Zilly. (CH)
|
| 26 |
| Filed & Entered: | 06/25/2007 | |
Response to Motion |
| Docket Text: RESPONSE, by Defendants David Lefer, Little Brown and Company, Time Warner Book Group, Harold Evans Associates LLC, Harold Evans, to [25] MOTION to Exclude Defendants' Expert Witness. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Johnson, Bruce)
|
| 27 |
| Filed & Entered: | 06/25/2007 | |
Declaration |
| Docket Text: DECLARATION of Bruce Johnson filed by Defendants David Lefer, Little Brown and Company, Time Warner Book Group, Harold Evans Associates LLC, Harold Evans re [25] MOTION to Exclude Defendants' Expert Witness (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Johnson, Bruce)
|
| 28 |
| Filed: | 07/02/2007 |
| Entered: | 07/06/2007 |
|
Motion Hearing |
| Docket Text: MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Thomas S. Zilly - Dep Clerk: Gail Glass; Pla Counsel: Detrich Biemiller; Def Counsel: Michael Tomkins; CR: Joe Roth; Motion Hearing held on 7/2/2007 The Court hears oral argument from counsel on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, docket [13]. The Court takes the matter under advisement.(GG, )
|
| 29 |
| Filed & Entered: | 07/25/2007 | |
Order on Motion for Summary Judgment |
| Docket Text: ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. The Court GRANTS [13] Dfts' Motion for Summary Judgment. (CL, )
|
| 30 |
| Filed & Entered: | 07/25/2007 | |
Judgment by Court |
| Docket Text: JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE/DECISION BY COURT. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED; The Court GRANTS dfts' Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. [13], on each of pltf's claims. This case is dismissed.(CL, ) |
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Erwan on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 04:32 PM EDT |
If any...
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 04:33 PM EDT |
For clickier links, follow the instructions for HTML posting in red at the
bottom of the form.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Function 6 or function 9? - Authored by: pscottdv on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 04:44 PM EDT
- Microsoft HD Image format - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 05:04 PM EDT
- SCO to sue Apple? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 06:45 PM EDT
- Eben Moglen calls Tim O'Reilly to participate in the discussion - Authored by: artp on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 07:08 PM EDT
- Vancouver law firm trades in MS for desktop Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 07:23 PM EDT
- OOXML Oasis voting - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 08:23 PM EDT
- Music suit creates discord (news picks)... - Authored by: Latesigner on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 08:31 PM EDT
- TorrentSpy Lawyer Battling "Copyright Extremism" - Authored by: jplatt39 on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 09:11 PM EDT
- Is anyone from AU attending the OOXML forum - Authored by: british on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 09:18 PM EDT
- Okay, Citizens Of Mass., It's Time For A New Boston Tea Party! - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 10:38 PM EDT
- Reminds me of UCSD Pascal - Authored by: CraigV on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 11:10 PM EDT
- UhOhXML stumbles upon another hurdle - Authored by: Winter on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 03:07 AM EDT
- Aug 2 UserFriendly :-[) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 06:13 AM EDT
- Microsoft tries paid for by advertising office suite - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 08:42 AM EDT
- Why OOXML will not be an ISO/IEC standard in 2007 - Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 10:04 AM EDT
- Use of web archive did not constitute hacking, says US court - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 10:40 AM EDT
- RealNetworks Case Highlights Sea-Change In Patent Law - Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 11:08 AM EDT
- Newspicks Thread, please - Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 11:12 AM EDT
- OT: The Guardian Story in Newspicks - Authored by: jplatt39 on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 01:42 PM EDT
- Restricto Tools... now with SPAM. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 05:31 PM EDT
- LonelyGirl15' to meet fate Friday - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 07:01 PM EDT
- Crack down on US mod chip sellers - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 08:15 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
Computer
Chronicles Gary Kildall Special
I recently came across this old show and
was particularly struck by the moment where Gary was explaining that the o/s
market was big enough for multiple players and Bill Gates interrupted with "no,
there can be only one".
Some things never change..
Link to older Groklaw comment
This is a great
video, done as a memorial to Kildall by former co-workers. I think it goes a
bit into the copyright problem with QDOS/MS-DOS that led to them forcing IBM to
sell both as a remedy. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 04:50 PM EDT |
In implementing the design of QDOS Mr Paterson admits he took his inspiration
for the basic architecture, names of calls etc from Mr Kildall's CP/M, infact,
he basically followed the handbook. There is no suggestion he actually copied
the code, but he did use the published references to guide the development of
QDOS.
For this reason, and because he subsequently sold out to Bill Gates he is Teh
Devil. We must oppose this behaviour and pillory the people responsible for
ever.
Linus Torvalds created Linux, using the UNIX manuals for his inspiration, There
is no suggestion he actually copied the code, but he did use the published
references to guide the development of Linux.
For this reason, he is Teh God, we must hail him as a great saviour, our leader
and general Good Guy (tm). He can do no wrong.
Oh, wait ... thats not right ....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- In a nutshell - Authored by: sprag on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 05:00 PM EDT
- In a nutshell, a difference - Authored by: Winter on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 05:13 PM EDT
- In a nutshell - Authored by: billposer on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- In a nutshell - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 08:59 PM EDT
- Important difference - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 02:24 AM EDT
- How CP/M licensees worked - Authored by: artp on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 12:20 PM EDT
- In a nutshell - Authored by: hamstring on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 01:06 PM EDT
- Perhaps, A Little More Than A Clone - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2007 @ 05:29 PM EDT
- Big Mistake - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2007 @ 08:25 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 04:57 PM EDT |
When Paterson says that "They published a manual", he means a manual
published by the CP/M people, not a manual published by some other part of the
QDOS team, right?
Could the compatibility or clean room defenses have applied?
-Jeff
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Which manual? - Authored by: cybervegan on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 05:15 PM EDT
- Which manual? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 05:24 PM EDT
- not a copyright case - Authored by: xtifr on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 05:34 PM EDT
- Which manual? - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 06:01 PM EDT
- He's lying - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 08:46 PM EDT
- He's lying - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 09:41 PM EDT
- Which manual? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 09:05 PM EDT
- Really? - Authored by: gdeinsta on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 10:27 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
PJ,
Once again you have created a wonderful resource, both for current readers and
the future, by assembling this comprehensive commentary with resources and
notes.
I can't imagine another journalist or venue that could have done this.
"An admirer" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 05:41 PM EDT |
| Ahem.
I remember when this book was news. Please see The
Man Who Could Have Been Bill Gates.
BusinessWeek
OCTOBER 25,
2004
"A new book says Gates got the rewards due Gary Kildall. What's the
real story?"
By Steve Hamm in New York and Jay Greene in
Seattle
"…book says Gates got the rewards due Gary
Kildall."
This link is something I noted back in 2004, and added
to the bottom of my personal link page, FOSS Advocacy and
Software Problems.---
"You interact with a computer differently
when you can trust it to be reliable." --from a blog comment, 2007-07 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
Personally, I think folks *should* build on each others' software
and share and share alike, because software is knowledge, and shared knowledge
is a good thing.
Well of course. And it just seems odd to me
that so many of these recent suits seem to have come from people you would not
expect to have much to lose from the actual statements. Where others see
conspiracy I'm seeing a dumbing down.
Thank you, PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- History indeed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 09:14 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 06:40 PM EDT |
| CP/M in binary form and with some source code is available for non-commercial
personal use. The Unofficial CP/M Web
site. This is under a license from the current owner (Linneo). Some of the
source code was lost long ago, so some software is available only as binaries.
Source code for GEM (A GUI similar in concept to the original MS-Windows)
was released under GPL by Caldera (yes, that Caldera) some time around 1999.
This is available at
another site.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 06:45 PM EDT |
Another tall tale of paternity from the past...
Linus the author? Can't be!
No matter that facts don't agree.
It is clear that Linux,
is derrived from Minix!
Ken Brown's a paid expert you see.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LocoYokel on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 08:52 PM EDT |
As I sit here with the original binder holding the manuals and disks for CP/M
V1.1 for the IBM PC and PC XT with copyright and production dates of 1983
printed on them. With the original box sitting on the desk beside me. I don't
even know if the disks are still good (probably not though) but I do still have
the entire kit.
The box and binder is water stained from living in an apartment that had leaking
foundations and I don't even know why I still have the thing. It must just be
the geekiness factor.
---
Waiting for the games I play to be released in Linux, or a decent Windows
emulator, to switch entirely.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 09:31 PM EDT |
“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of
giants”.
Today we are still standing on Gary Kildall's shoulders. He
may have been buried under withered leaves which have accumulated for more than
thirty years. But like a breeze this lawsuit (and the reporting about it) have
blown away the dust. And there he is.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 10:46 PM EDT |
Dr. Kildall left us too soon, but he changed all our lives while he was
here.
Every PC owner owes Gary a debt of gratitude. Bill Gates
and Microsoft owe him more than anyone else. Gary was the first person to
interface a disk system to a microcomputer and create an operating system for
it. He changed what had previously been a circuit designed for process control
applications into a fully functional computer. Microcomputers now did tasks
previously done only on minicomputers and mainframes. The world changed
dramatically because of his work.
--
The Gary Kildall
Legacy, by Sol Libes
I'm really glad to see PJ put some
more of the CP/M history on Groklaw. Anyone who experienced the explosive and
exciting growth of "microcomputers" during the days of CP/M can appreciate how
much of a dumbing-down that MSDOS represented. Personal computing development
seemed to go from racing in all directions to plodding along a controlled,
pre-packaged path when the PC-compatible consolidated the market. For me, it
didn't regain the personal aspect until Linux was paired with GNU. Discovering
free (libre) software was like finding where the party had been
transferred.
There were archives of free software (some free as in speech,
some only free as in beer) for CP/M. These contained works that were amazing in
their compactness, robustness, elegance and ability to maximize limited computer
resources. Users of modern free software for GNU/Linux and the BSDs will
immediately recognize those shared qualities. Even non-free software for CP/M
outperformed MSDOS and MS Windows software "applications" for years.
(PerfectWriter, which came bundled with Kaypro computers and, incidentally, uses
the same basic key commands as Emacs, could open and edit larger documents in
64K of RAM that MS Word could in 2MB of RAM, on the first PC that I
owned).
It is heartening to see the growth of free operating systems. They
feel more connected to the hectic days of early personal computing than does the
nearly stagnant branch of the quick and dirty clone that we've been following
for too many years. Maybe the Dark Ages of computing that Microsoft has imposed
on us for so long is truly ending. I still encounter people who say they
"wouldn't know how to turn a computer on", but I'm also running into more and
more people who are excited by having personal control of their computers
restored to them by free software. Folks seem to prefer being enabled to be
creative over being controlled.
---
-- grouch
"People aren't as dumb as Microsoft needs them to be."
--PJ, May 2007
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 11:24 PM EDT |
"12. Mr. Paterson is unable to prove that 86-DOS did not copy algorithms,
data structures, and other trade secrets and confidential information
incorporated in the CP/M program."
I thought that in this country, you don't have to prove your innocence.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Greybeard2 on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 09:27 AM EDT |
Here's an interesting twist to the Vista sales story. I ordered a refurbished
Dell Optiplex with "Windows XP Pro with Vista Ultimate License"
The Acknowledgment email said:
Genuine Windows XP Pro with Vista Ultimate License
The Confirmation email said:
1 Genuine Windows XP Pro with Vista Ultimate License
But the actual order spec posted to my Dell Account said:
1 XN205 Module,Label,MicroSoft,Vista Downgrade,BSC,DT $0.01
After 20 phone minutes with Dell I can't get an explanation: they wanted me to
talk to a technician about a desktop that is still sitting in a Round Rock
warehouse.
Finally I said look, when I plug this machine in and turn it on --- what will it
say on the screen?
There was a loooong pause --- then a subdued reply: "Vista. But the
technician can explain to you how to install XP Pro"
So there you have it, every MS critics dream: The Vista Downgrade.
Dell makes GREAT computers, I've used them for years --- but it is getting tough
to get their product.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
Back when the only way one could get CP/M was as the opsys in an expensive
system from Intel used to develop code to embed the original 4004, 8008, 8080
and suchlike. The hardware system was "a piece of junk" and so we (a
beltway bandit outfit doing work for various agencies) were on the phone with
him a few times to get things working. Yeah, back then there weren't too many
of us systems programmers and you really got a competant person on the phone
when you called. Who else would they have handed the phone to anyway?
Gary was a good guy. He deserves both more and less credit than he gets (not
that he cares anymore, that interesting death just after the MS talks fell
through). Gary was crusty and brilliant both. At the time, our own code was
re-entrant, fully interrupt driven and so on, and we urged him to take his stuff
to that level. His response was more or less "It's too hard and Intel
won't pay for it".
Remember where he worked at the time. We offered free help - he could copy our
code where it helped and so on. No good. Intel at the time was not a
cooperative company (and in fact trademarked things like the mnemonic for
"ADD", speaking of dumb IP stuff) and they kept Gary really busy. The
oral history spoken here seems to begin somewhat after this time, which is why I
post.
Think how different the world would be today if Windows had been built on a
really good base! (nowadays it's OS2->NT->whatever, with a different set
of problems)
I'm Doug Coulter (sometimes have an account here) and the other person who could
back this up is Steve Kenyon, whom I've lost touch with, as we both did
substantial work with Gary back in the days when he worked at Intel.
He told us the reason for the $. It's simple and stupid. He didn't like his
bosses all that well. He didn't want his labor of love perverted into a
business system that made them millions (big money in the day) while he was
underpaid, so he made it very difficult to ever print a dollar sign, as using it
for the system string terminator will do. There was still a way, but it wasn't
widely documented (length byte with no terminator needed for one function, and a
special function that would print any one character).
In short, Gary is the inventor of the FAT file system, warts and all -- you
know, that thing MS got royalties from all the camera makers for after they
patented prior art they didn't develop. No one else came up with it, that was
*all* Gary with no help from anyone. Remember at the time an 8" floppy was
big as uP's went, with their 8-24k of memory and a simple compiler for ASM at
most. So one has to put the limitations of FAT into perspective.
When the Kaypro came out with a suspiciously identical opsys including name, we
got our hands on the source (don't remember how) and indeed it was Gary's stuff,
comments and all. He'd given us the source to the original as a way to do the
early version of FOSS -- he was hoping for and got some bug fixes from us. All
this probably without permission from Intel.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I knew Gary - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 11:19 PM EDT
- I knew Gary - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 02:51 PM EDT
- Kaypro -- suspicous? How? - Authored by: grouch on Friday, August 03 2007 @ 08:50 AM EDT
- I knew Gary - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2007 @ 10:04 AM EDT
- I knew Gary - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 12:03 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: newbury on Friday, August 03 2007 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
"Paterson worked with source code for CP/M systems both for the SCP
Zebra S-100 machines and at Microsoft on the CP/M they produced on the MS Z80
Softcard for the Apple ][, both companies being full DRI OEM developers with
all
the internal tools and source from DRI."
I bought my first computer just after Christmas 1979: an Apple ][, with a MS Z80
card. It ran CP/M.
At that time, MS was not yet based in Redmond (Arizona???). Not many people know
that MS *made hardware* in the beginning, but that hardware was a base on which
to run the MS Basic which BG started with. It was a few years later that he got
the invite to talk to IBM.
And, IIRC, his MOTHER was a Director of IBM at the time. I wonder if he could
have arranged for the opportunity of talking to IBM without that golden key.
Because we now know he did NOT yet have the OS which he contracted to provide.
BG: As Churchill said of Napoleon...'intelligent, a brilliant strategist and
tactician and completely amoral'.
Ancient History:
Anyone Remember?
WordPerfect
Electric Pencil
Magic Wand
NEC Diablo 620 spin-writer
Xerox 820......?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
