4 ms·

Was Microsoft Built on Stolen Goods?

11 points by RachelF 10y ago

camtarn 10y ago
TL;DR: the article ends with a promo for an in-person talk by Bob Zeidman in which he will reveal the answer to this question. The question is not actually answered in the article.
- simonster 10y ago
  The question is answered here: http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/say-what-/4442498/1/Was-DOS-copied-from-CPM- http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/say-what-/4442498/.... The answer is no, except for the system calls.
- indolering 10y ago
  And it's old, the actual even took place a month ago and the results were a boring no:http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/say-what-/4442498/1/Was-DOS-copied-from-CPM- http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/say-what-/4442498/....
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- shakethemonkey 10y ago
  Attended this talk which was at the Vintage Computer Festival in Mountain View. Zeidman offers a $100,000 reward for proof of actual code copying. [1] [1] http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/08/08/theres-a-200k-reward-for-anyone-who-proves-microsoft-ripped-off-ms-dos-source-code/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/08/08/theres-a-200k-rewar...
efoto 10y ago
This two months old is all suspense and doesn't answer the question. You can read the promised report here, though: http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/say-what-/4442498/3/Was-DOS-copied-from-CPM- http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/say-what-/4442498/...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
shmerl 10y ago
Reminds me Antitrust (film). Oh, and if system calls were copied, MS should be reminded that they supported Oracle's claim that APIs should be copyrightable... Sitting on two chairs much?
- tzs 10y ago
  Microsoft is only sitting on one chair here. Their position on the Oracle case was that APIs should be copyrightable but that copying for interoperability would be covered by doctrines such as fair use or merger.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    There is no reason to view them copyrightable then. The only reason to use a given API and not some random set of functions is interoperability. So they do sit on two chairs, or they have some logic problems.
    - tzs 10y ago
      An argument for viewing them as copyrightable and then making copying for compatibility OK under fair use or merger would be to avoid complicating copyright law. A good example of this kind of thing can be seen in how copyright law deals with executing programs. Suppose you have a copy of a copyrighted program on your hard disk. You tell your computer to execute it. To do that the computer reads the program from the hard disk and writes it into RAM. Most people would say that a copy of the program has been made in RAM. That naturally leads to the question of the copyright status of that copy, and what, if any, permissions you should need from the copyright owner in order for making that copy to be legal. It seemed apparent to most (including the majority of people in charge of writing copyright laws...) that if you are the lawful owner of a copy of a program you should be allowed to make a copy of that program in RAM in order to execute it. The question, then, is how to fit that in with copyright law. There are at least a couple of ways to approach this. 1. Define it as not being a copy, and therefore out of scope for copyright law. 2. Acknowledge that it is a copy, but make an exception to the copyright owner's exclusive right to make or authorize making of copies. The problem with the first approach is that it adds complexity to a layer of the law that it is really nice to keep simple. In law, like in many other fields, keeping the base simple and putting the complexity in upper layers leads to things being easier to understand, and easier to modify and fix without unintended consequences. It generally works out much better to keep the lower layers simple, especially the definitions of terms in the lower layers. In the US they went with the second approach. They added an explicit exception to the copyright owner's rights that covered programs (17 USC 117). A very similar argument could be made for APIs. 17 USC 102, Subject Matter of Copyright, is pretty simple: Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. It seems like an API would qualify under that. There is another part of 17 USC 102 that does put a limit on the part I quoted above: In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. One could argue that APIs fall under this, but it is not at all clear what aspects of an API are the ideas, procedures, etc., and what parts are not. We'll end up having to contemplate the difference between a thing and the name of a thing. It's the same problem as I described with copies on RAM. 17 USC 102 is part of the lowest layer, so should be kept simple, and so one can make the same argument that things are cleaner and safer by keeping an expansive interpretation of 102 and using fair use or something else at a similar level to authorize API copying for compatibility. One of Microsoft's points in their brief when they asked CAFC to take the appeal was that this was the approach of prior courts that dealt with copying API elements for compatibility. They did not rule that APIs were not copyrightable. They instead found exceptions that limited the copyright owner's rights in the case of APIs and compatibility.
StudyAnimal 10y ago
Its a shame the article "wont go into details" because it is only the details that are interesting. The rest is known. Tim Patersons wikipedia page mentions he had access to CP/M source and copied at least the "API" for compatibility purposes. Considering this is low level assembler, for 2 fairly small, mininmal operating systems, basically handling interrupts and interacting with the bios etc, even if Paterson didn't have access to the source, (but may have had e.g. read the same books as Kildall) two operating systems will have similarities, especially if they share an API. There are only a couple of ways to set up an interrupt handler, or call a bios function.
aioprisan 10y ago
So, more fluff and unproven conspiracy theories? We're talking about tiny OSes with the same interrupts for some very basic hardware, how are you not going to get some similar code?
monocasa 10y ago
Given that we've had the source to both CP\M http://www.cpm.z80.de/source.html http://www.cpm.z80.de/source.html and MS-DOS v1.1 https://github.com/BlastarIndia/msdos https://github.com/BlastarIndia/msdos available for some time, and given that there's sort of always been bad blood between DR and Microsoft, I'm going to go with 'no' being the answer here. DR would be suing. Hell, if I were Microsoft's legal team and if the answer isn't 'no' I'd be crafting up a scary letter involving libel.
peter303 10y ago
A followup article gives the result: code not copied but APIs used. http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/zeidman-consulting-concludes-that-microsoft-did-not-copy-cp-m-code-but-did-copy-system-2148758.htm http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/zeidman-consulting-... Whether APIs can be protected is the core of long legal feud between Oracle-Sun and Google over Java APIs used in Android.
hoodoof 10y ago
No, it wasn't.
majewsky 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

11 points by RachelF 10y ago

TL;DR: the article ends with a promo for an in-person talk by Bob Zeidman in which he will reveal the answer to this question. The question is not actually answered in the article.

simonster 10y ago
The question is answered here: http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/say-what-/4442498/1/Was-DOS-copied-from-CPM- http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/say-what-/4442498/.... The answer is no, except for the system calls.
indolering 10y ago
And it's old, the actual even took place a month ago and the results were a boring no:http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/say-what-/4442498/1/Was-DOS-copied-from-CPM- http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/say-what-/4442498/....
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
shakethemonkey 10y ago
Attended this talk which was at the Vintage Computer Festival in Mountain View. Zeidman offers a $100,000 reward for proof of actual code copying. [1] [1] http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/08/08/theres-a-200k-reward-for-anyone-who-proves-microsoft-ripped-off-ms-dos-source-code/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/08/08/theres-a-200k-rewar...

efoto 10y ago

This two months old is all suspense and doesn't answer the question. You can read the promised report here, though: http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/say-what-/4442498/3/Was-DOS-copied-from-CPM- http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/say-what-/4442498/...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

shmerl 10y ago

Reminds me Antitrust (film). Oh, and if system calls were copied, MS should be reminded that they supported Oracle's claim that APIs should be copyrightable... Sitting on two chairs much?

tzs 10y ago
Microsoft is only sitting on one chair here. Their position on the Oracle case was that APIs should be copyrightable but that copying for interoperability would be covered by doctrines such as fair use or merger.
- shmerl 10y ago
  There is no reason to view them copyrightable then. The only reason to use a given API and not some random set of functions is interoperability. So they do sit on two chairs, or they have some logic problems.
  - tzs 10y ago
    An argument for viewing them as copyrightable and then making copying for compatibility OK under fair use or merger would be to avoid complicating copyright law. A good example of this kind of thing can be seen in how copyright law deals with executing programs. Suppose you have a copy of a copyrighted program on your hard disk. You tell your computer to execute it. To do that the computer reads the program from the hard disk and writes it into RAM. Most people would say that a copy of the program has been made in RAM. That naturally leads to the question of the copyright status of that copy, and what, if any, permissions you should need from the copyright owner in order for making that copy to be legal. It seemed apparent to most (including the majority of people in charge of writing copyright laws...) that if you are the lawful owner of a copy of a program you should be allowed to make a copy of that program in RAM in order to execute it. The question, then, is how to fit that in with copyright law. There are at least a couple of ways to approach this. 1. Define it as not being a copy, and therefore out of scope for copyright law. 2. Acknowledge that it is a copy, but make an exception to the copyright owner's exclusive right to make or authorize making of copies. The problem with the first approach is that it adds complexity to a layer of the law that it is really nice to keep simple. In law, like in many other fields, keeping the base simple and putting the complexity in upper layers leads to things being easier to understand, and easier to modify and fix without unintended consequences. It generally works out much better to keep the lower layers simple, especially the definitions of terms in the lower layers. In the US they went with the second approach. They added an explicit exception to the copyright owner's rights that covered programs (17 USC 117). A very similar argument could be made for APIs. 17 USC 102, Subject Matter of Copyright, is pretty simple: Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. It seems like an API would qualify under that. There is another part of 17 USC 102 that does put a limit on the part I quoted above: In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. One could argue that APIs fall under this, but it is not at all clear what aspects of an API are the ideas, procedures, etc., and what parts are not. We'll end up having to contemplate the difference between a thing and the name of a thing. It's the same problem as I described with copies on RAM. 17 USC 102 is part of the lowest layer, so should be kept simple, and so one can make the same argument that things are cleaner and safer by keeping an expansive interpretation of 102 and using fair use or something else at a similar level to authorize API copying for compatibility. One of Microsoft's points in their brief when they asked CAFC to take the appeal was that this was the approach of prior courts that dealt with copying API elements for compatibility. They did not rule that APIs were not copyrightable. They instead found exceptions that limited the copyright owner's rights in the case of APIs and compatibility.

StudyAnimal 10y ago

Its a shame the article "wont go into details" because it is only the details that are interesting. The rest is known. Tim Patersons wikipedia page mentions he had access to CP/M source and copied at least the "API" for compatibility purposes. Considering this is low level assembler, for 2 fairly small, mininmal operating systems, basically handling interrupts and interacting with the bios etc, even if Paterson didn't have access to the source, (but may have had e.g. read the same books as Kildall) two operating systems will have similarities, especially if they share an API. There are only a couple of ways to set up an interrupt handler, or call a bios function.

aioprisan 10y ago

So, more fluff and unproven conspiracy theories? We're talking about tiny OSes with the same interrupts for some very basic hardware, how are you not going to get some similar code?

monocasa 10y ago

Given that we've had the source to both CP\M http://www.cpm.z80.de/source.html http://www.cpm.z80.de/source.html and MS-DOS v1.1 https://github.com/BlastarIndia/msdos https://github.com/BlastarIndia/msdos available for some time, and given that there's sort of always been bad blood between DR and Microsoft, I'm going to go with 'no' being the answer here. DR would be suing. Hell, if I were Microsoft's legal team and if the answer isn't 'no' I'd be crafting up a scary letter involving libel.

peter303 10y ago

A followup article gives the result: code not copied but APIs used. http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/zeidman-consulting-concludes-that-microsoft-did-not-copy-cp-m-code-but-did-copy-system-2148758.htm http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/zeidman-consulting-... Whether APIs can be protected is the core of long legal feud between Oracle-Sun and Google over Java APIs used in Android.

hoodoof 10y ago

No, it wasn't.

majewsky 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines