Author: Amir Ban
Date: 02:15:37 11/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 01, 1998 at 23:27:26, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 01, 1998 at 19:10:49, Amir Ban wrote: > > >It is very interesting to learn these details. On my side, I have read in a >(trustable) paper that Microsoft had simply copied byte-by-byte some portions of >Stacker assembly code. > The Stac suit was about patent infringement, not copyright. Maybe you or your source paper are talking about the Microsoft counter-suit: To be able to boot from stacked disks, Stac disassembled and reimplemented the DOS boot code. They sort of had to do that, because this was not documented anywhere. Microsoft sued them successfully for doing this. Another bad verdict, IMO. >There was also the fact that - correct me if I am wrong - Microsoft DoubleSpace >could read Stacker compressed disks. As you told us, Microsoft bought DoubleDisk >source code, not Stacker's. Did they negociate the ability to read Stacker >volumes? If not, it is maybe one of the reasons they were sentenced? > I don't remember that DoubleSpace supported Stacker formats. Perhaps it did later, as Microsoft became a Stac partner after the verdict. In any case there's no copyright violation in supporting other people's data formats. >Anyway, Microsoft has lost in court. I am not going to believe that Stac was the >bad guy in this story. > Actually I found them to be a very nice and intelligent company, and they successfully defended their business from ruin. The verdict in this case sounded wrong to me, but I didn't get deep into the details. You have to remember that patent cases in the US are often decided by jury. Amir
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.