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? "
Looking for a fast buck? (Score:2, Interesting)
Will this be like the Be, Inc. lawsuit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like a bunch of BS (Score:0, Interesting)
give me a break... (Score:3, Interesting)
True: I do believe that if MS did do wrong, it should have it's tail whuped.
Also True: The extremely late timing of this looks very suspicious. It looks more like he's grasping at financial straws...
Proposal (Score:2, Interesting)
If Microsoft had taken a hit in the shorts... (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, everyone ascribes to Microsoft the mastery of the mythical magical power of money, so therefore the only reason Microsoft would shut down an effort so soon after Go did and sold to AT&T would naturally be, mission accomplished. Not the very real reason that it was just not going to happen back in 1995 the way Go or Microsoft wanted.
Go is being a real opportunist and they need to be slapped down. The Linux world needs to understand that their derision for Microsoft doesn't change the fact that opportunistic lawsuits happen all the time. The SCO affair should make that abundantly clear. How long till some small distro outfit sues Red Hat or Novell? If there's merit, there's merit, but this doesn't smell like it and neither does SCO's actions and if things keep up like this, it is bad news for any IT company for the future.
Geez (Score:1, Interesting)
Not to mention that Microsoft didn't hold nearly the power back in '87 that they do now. Windows took over the world because it was better than the DOS-shell alternatives (better meaning "more compatible with DOS", which is Microsoft's big thing the Did Right). I used a lot of these things. They all SUCKED compared to Windows 3.1, which was way, way faster. I even remember an X-based shell. God was that thing bad. HP had a DOS shell that was interesting, but had major problems.
People don't remember that there was a reason Microsoft won. They actually had a better product.
The only thing that came along that was better was OS/2, and IBM made the fatal mistake of making it incompatible with Win32 and Windows drivers (which meant no software). Microsoft learned that compatibility was everything; IBM didn't. I even recall that IBM shipped OS/2 and Win 3.1 as a dual-load for awhile. It defaulted to OS/2, and you actually had to go through some steps to delete OS/2 and install Win 3.1, and people STILL installed Win 3.1.
Re:Kooks (Score:5, Interesting)
3. Pay off gov't or company suing them.
4. Profit.
With all the dirt that's coming up as one antitrust suit cascades into another though, I start to wonder just how long Step 4 will remain viable for MS. Especially after the US$850 million settlement with IBM (which only settled some of the claims there, IIRC).
To paraphrase a famous quote from a US Congressman, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money."
Karma's a bitch, and MS has bad karma by the cargo ship load to burn off.
OEM and MSFT (Score:2, Interesting)
That'd kinda be like selling appliances without power cords. Make people decide what source of power they want. I mean people could choose - wall sockets, solar power, nuclear reactor in their basement, hampster wheel, whatever. But you'd probably wind up with a lot of people who'd fry themselves trying to attach the default power method anyways, just like you would probably wind up with a bunch of people buying Microsoft products anyways. It's just not worth the trouble.
-everphilski-
Re:Microsoft has a point... (Score:5, Interesting)
1, Go starts do develop the technology.
2, Need money, so make publicity, attract investors.
3, MS smells competition, announces similar product
4, investors think: why should I invest in Go, when MS will soon have the same product (competing with MS never good!), which (according to MS) will be as good as or better, run on windows, thus instantly have all win application, integrated, etc, you know the MS drill about a new product.
5, Without money, Go folds.
6, MS suddenly realizes that the handwriting is not so hot.
7, The handwriting development stops for years, the world is set back in this field by about 5 years.
MS did something illegal? Will be hard to prove. But they were well avare that anything they say, people listen, and abused their position.
Szo
Re:Sounds like a bunch of BS (Score:4, Interesting)
Startup [penguingroup.com] it's pretty old at this point but I remember enjoying it. From the book, it's clear that he was comitted to Go.
So, characterizing him as "sounds like a person who bought the company to sue and make some serious cash on the curtails of other companies legit claims against Microsoft" seems off base. I would probably say that it sounds like a guy who's startup got crushed then he sold the smoldering remains to AT&T. AT&T sat on it for a few years then the guy found out that his startup was crushed partly by illegal means. So, he buys the remains back and trys to go get the guys who messed him over.
I'd say that there's nothing unsavory about that. I'd say that the unsavory is pretty much on Microsoft's end of the deal.
Jerry has a point, too (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I always wondered why the government didn't use the Go story in its antitrust case; it's a tidily packaged narrative that hits many of the low points in the patterns of Microsoft's behavior. OTOH, they had so much material to work with...
As a struggling startup, Go didn't stand a chance in any possible legal action at the time, and AT&T didn't have the will (even if it did have the means) after Go was forced into selling out. Suing now may look opportunistic, but Jerry did only recently reacquire what's left of the company, and if he can demonstrate that illegal behavior by Microsoft contributed to the delay in his ability to pursue legal action, maybe he'll get his day in court.
Disclaimer: I had occasion to work with Jerry for a while before he started Go, although that doesn't really predispose me to take his side.
Re:Pen-based computing is a fairly recent phenomen (Score:5, Interesting)
I have several NCR 3125 NotePad [geocities.com] computers that originally ran PenPoint OS.
These devices were what Microsoft now calls "Tablet PCs".
When they first came to market, Microsoft panicked and announced "Pen Extensions for Windows" (which added very little to Windows 3.1) and claimed that a buch of new systems were coming out to use it. Typical Microsoft vaporware tactics... everyone decided to wait for the wonderful new MS product instead of buying the PenPoint devices, and the market for them collapsed.
Considering that it took them this long to actually produce a product, they obviously only made the annoucement to kill any potential competitor from gaining a foothold.
Call it a conspiracy theory if you wish, but it's a court-proven tactic that MS loves to (ab)use and is quite famous for.
The handwriting recognition in PenPoint was actually very impressive, by the way.
happened to us too... (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked at a company making "digital delivery" ware - stuff that allowed try-before-buy and key-based product unlocking from CD.
Microsoft approached us with interest in the product. However, we could never get them to sign an agreement where they would commit to deploying the technology. They wanted absolutely every detailed spec including code for evaluation, without committing... it suffices to say after a few months with no agreement, we told them we would not release the jewels without an agreement where a product resulted.
Within two weeks, Microsoft announced their own vapour competetive technology. Its FUD department was publishing slander against our product (their security experts saying DES was better than FEAL, lol). Microsoft was lobbying NTT against us as well as some of our clients. Some new clients bailed because they said "We'll wait for that microsoft solution."
Does this sound like fair trade practice?
Re:Who has heard of Go Computer, Inc? (Score:4, Interesting)
Argh.
Re:They have been legally found to be a monopoly. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds a bit different than the dictionary definition, doesn't it? Could it be that the legal definition of a word is not always identical to what you see in the dictionary?
Re:Kooks (Score:3, Interesting)
But say they had managed, without Microsoft's tactics (whatever they might have been), to survive another three or four years, when the technology started to take off. By suing immediately, they were much more likely to lose because of the apparent lack of usefulness of the technology, vs. waiting till the technology is obviously viable.
Blake
Was MS even a monopoly then? (Score:5, Interesting)