Founder of Go Computer, Inc. sues Microsoft 370
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? "
Kooks (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup. This has been going on for a long time. Once a company becomes successful, kooks start coming out of the woodwork to sue them. It's starting to happen to Google too. Microsoft is an ideal victim for this, with their "unclean" history when it comes to other peoples' intellectual property. Microsoft would be well advised, if they haven't already, to have a strict regimen for ensuring that all code they release is really theirs. This is the only viable defense against these types of suits. This suit certainly won't be the last.
Timing? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is this the war cry!? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Microsoft DID use unfair monopolostic practises, then EVERY company that commercially released software that in ANY way overlapped with Microsoft's business would have been adversely affected by Microsoft's illegal/unethical practises, even if it was in the minutest way.
So, yes... let people sue Microsoft. There has to be SOME downsite for being an illegal monopolist.
(And, never let it be said, now, that Microsoft totally weaseled out of 'that' court decision
Microsoft has a point... (Score:2, Insightful)
Go was sold to AT&T Corp. in 1994, which closed the company in July of the same year. In November of 1994, Microsoft shut down its competing pen-computing effort, called PenWindows, which the suit alleges had largely existed to destroy Go.
Go was based on handwriting recognition. The technology was not very good in the early 90's and has only recently become usable. I realize that most of Slashdot never sides with Microsoft but in this case Microsoft only made a competing product that didn't even do very well itself. Just because Microsoft shut down their PenWindows division after Go was sold does not mean that it existed to destroy Go. This was 1994! Handwriting recognition was horrible! -Keith
Re:Kooks (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Gather information on product
2. Wait a few years for the company/product to completely flop
3. Bootstrap your exisiting OS to support features you're engineers have been squirrling away for 20 years
4. Feel the wrath of a company that has nothing more to run with but suing the Cash Cow for a piece of the pie they think they helped MS innovate, albeit indirectly.
Re:Kooks (Score:2, Insightful)
They don't have to do such thing when they can do the following:
1. Steal from other companies/Break Laws.
2. Sell products that break laws or include properties of others for A LOT of money.
3. Pay off gov't or company suing them.
4. Profit.
5. GOTO 1.
Which is it? Why can't it be both? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would we assume that those two are mutually exclusive?
Is there any doubt that MS would have behaved that way, if they really perceived GO to be a threat?
Is there any doubt that they would have behaved immorally and illegally if that's what it took to counter that threat to their monopoly?
Was there any reason for Kaplan to file a suit before there was a possibility of success?
I'd say there's a good chance that Kaplan is taking advantage of MS's recent court losses to get his cut ... the cut that he's warranted because MS wrongly did him out of it!
Re:Kooks (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazon.com link to book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140 257314/qid=1120666767/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-707629 3-4464656?v=glance&s=books/ [amazon.com]
Re:Kooks (Score:4, Insightful)
Both could be true.
Justified suit (Score:4, Insightful)
People, don't just RTFA, RTF book. If you read Jerry Kaplan's Start Up, you see that he was on the receiving end of Microsoft's illegal practices e.g. forcing OEMs to pay licenses even on machines that did not have Windows installed. Go was a real company, not some opportunistic "my business model is a lawsuit" bunch of asshats. For all the obvious reasons, challenging Microsoft in a court of law was hardly an option.
The fact that Microsoft shafted them in the early nineties and it's only now that Go is suing is irrelvant (not sure when Kaplan got the rights back from AT&T/Lucent to do so), the fact that pen computing did not take off back then, all these are irrelevant facts. MS broke the law to ruin other people's businesses. Now that they have been convicted of doing so, it's open season for a few years yet for anyone with strong evidence that they were a genuine victim.
StartUp is kind of a heart breaking read as a technologist. When Go is unable to get proper funding or business deals (here's where MS's business practice screws them, for instance), and the company dies even as part of AT&T, MS quietly shuts down its own pen computing division, apparently happy that another potential competitor has been crushed before it could be a problem. The idea is we're supposed to be able to try and get innovations tried by the marketplace, not blocked by people with the vested interest to do so.
If MS is found guily or settles out of court, then that would be entirely appropriate. Yes, there are so many complaints like this that it's a cliche. Doesn't mean there aren't genuine cases, and given there's a published book on the facts from 1995 - well before anyone knew MS could be successfully to court - I would say this is one of them.
Re:Kooks (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Will this be like the Be, Inc. lawsuit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Only by a few delusional BeOS fans. The legal team which took this case had settled several previous suits and they were not taking a fee (Be Inc was a few months from bankrupt when it sold its assets to Palm Inc). So obviously they settled as soon as the Microsoft team made a favourable offer. The offer will have been calculated to give Be's lawyers a fair return (say a few million) and the rest went to the remaining Be Inc shareholders.
Do people bother to read the article? (Score:3, Insightful)
Kaplan re-acquired the rights to sue on Go's behalf - not the whole company - in April. The litigation was years ago, but if these emails and memos weren't properly produced during discovery - if MS did, in fact suppress them - then they are definitely still in trouble, 20 years later or not.
The question here is not whether Go was ever a viable company, or even if they would have lasted in the marketplace... it is whether they were forced from the market by collusion and anti competetive practices.
To be honest, a written request by then CEO of MS to the CEO of Intel to reverse a planned endorsement of a potenital competitor, and one that carries the tacit threat of reprisals fits that bill. At worst, it's compelling enough to give Kaplan his day in court, and let the courts decide if history has moved too far to attempt to judge the impact of this action.
Even if the judge allows it, damages are unlikely what MS haters would like to see. Go was a pioneer, and far before it's time. However, it should be simple enough for Microsoft to demonstrate that the novel elements of his OS (handwriting recognition) would have required more horsepower, and more refined technologies than were available during that period to be truly competetive.
It is often the lot of the innovator to be eclipsed by those with less vision, less imagination, and a bigger marketing budget.
Re:Tort Reform, Anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree with you generally about big companies who have to be diligent about the behavior of its many employees. This case is about more than just IP infringement. Go is also complaining about anti-competitive behavior. In this case, they have a record of the CEO being involved. Bill Gates personally contacted Andy Grove and advised him not to invest in Go. Personally the message reminded me of a Godfather's offer that no one could refuse.
Re:Microsoft has a point... (Score:4, Insightful)
Except for Gates telling Intel not to invest in Go. That just came out recently, and explains the timing and the viability of this suit.
Re:Except... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Justified suit (Score:4, Insightful)
Excellent post.
The main point that nobody seems to have mentioned is that PenPoint was a threat to Microsoft NOT because pen-based computing was seen as a threat. PenPoint was a "threat" because it broke with the "operating system as launcher for applications" paradigm. PenPoint was based on the idea of a blank page and tabs. There were no visible "applications"...different sets of tools launched depending on what the user was trying to do; start printing letters, text editing tools appeared; draw a box, graphing tools appeared. All this was opposed to the MS "use the OS to open an app, then open a file within that app" paradigm. This was a threat to the MS way of life.
PenPoint was the last truly revolutionary operating system and deserves it's day in court. Gate and MS set computing back 20 years.
Fuzzy thinking (Score:2, Insightful)
Collusion to suppress competition is not.
I don't understand how breaking the law is OK if the victim is unsavory or distasteful. That smacks of putting emotion ahead of reason.
Re:The basics of anti-trust law (Score:3, Insightful)
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/topics/antitrus
The emphasis is mine.
The definition of monopoly in anti-trust suits in the US comes from US law on the matter, not the Webster definition that applies to general situations.
Maybe we can redefine ad0gg to jackass.
Re:Who has heard of Go Computer, Inc? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I had my way, you'd get Karma points for acknowleding your error. Classy move.
Microsoft is a monopoly (Score:1, Insightful)
What you think monopoly means doesn't matter in the least. Perhaps you should learn what monopoly means to the law, and to economists.
The key question to ask yourself is: Did Microsoft act to compete, or to prevent competition? Competition benefits consumers, anti-competitive acts harm consumers.
I'd like to see Microsoft be brave enough to compete on the basis of its products, and stop using strong-arm tactics against their partners and customers. Threatening Go investors sounds like something that the Mafia would do, except that the Mafia has learned to be more subtle these days.
Re:happened to us too... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes.
It's not "classy" or "moral," but it's a time-honored business practice to slander competitors, and Microsoft didn't invent the concept. There's no law saying you didn't have an equal right to slander Microsoft for advertising a product they weren't actually producing, and it would have been a perfectly "fair trade practice" for you to do so.
Re:Microsoft Monolopy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You know what'd be nice...? (Score:2, Insightful)
- It's a vehicle for the casual reader to contribute. Maybe some only read occasionally, and/or don't feel that they'd be in a position to contribute something very often, so they haven't bothered to create an account. There are times when an AC post is the among the most thorough and insightful in a particular discussion.
- It has legitimate uses for people with accounts, too, under the umbrella of protecting against gratutituous karma destruction, if not outright moderation abuse:
- For responding to a slight tangent, like here, without getting dinked by an overzealous moderator. I enjoy occasional interesting diversions from what is stricly the topic at hand. This a good place for geeks to make even side points, and socialize a little, among other geeks where we know there's a good chance we'll actually be understood. Some moderators are just much more uptight about this.
- For stating a valid opinion that is not necessarily aligned with politically correct thought as represented by the masses on this site. Unpopular opinions are still technically capable of providing insight, and I find often do here. So I read at -1, and have done so for a long time now. Remove the AC account and those of us who can actually tolerate divergent views, and sometimes even appreciate them, will be deprived of this preference and the attraction of this site will diminish among such. The hive mind here is already quite excessive, but if literally only PC opinions were allowed to be seen here, that's only the kind of people that would come here, and there'd literally be nothing but perpetual redundant "preaching to the choir".
- For posting something humorous, to protect against genetic defectives born without a sense of humor. A little light-heartedness can liven up and refresh a serious discussion. I like to laugh at just about anything, and can appreciate even humor that insults my politics or religion or my mother etc., IF it's funny. But some overly-sensitive malcontents with mod points are quick to fly into a rage over any little thing and down-mod something.
So I shudder when I see someone suggest getting rid of the AC account, kind of like when I hear it suggested that maybe we should just immediately abandon Iraq, or get rid of the Electoral College, or surrender more rights under the guise of homeland security. There are sometimes actually very good reasons for things being the way they are.