4 ms·

> DoubleSpace contained stolen STAC code is this true? afaik, the lawsuit Stac won was a patent lawsuit over the compression algorithm - I don't think there wa

> DoubleSpace contained stolen STAC code is this true? afaik, the lawsuit Stac won was a patent lawsuit over the compression algorithm - I don't think there was actual implementation code involved.

lproven 4y ago
This is as I understand it. (It's my blog post, BTW.) https://web.archive.org/web/20070509205650/http://www.vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070509205650/http://www.vaxxin... https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-02-24-fi-26671-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-02-24-fi-26671-... https://tedium.co/2018/09/04/disk-compression-stacker-doublespace-history/ https://tedium.co/2018/09/04/disk-compression-stacker-double... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_law... MS bullied Central Point Software into providing the backup and antivirus tools, on the basis of CPS being able to sell upgrades and updates. CPS went out of business. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Point_Software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Point_Software MS attempted to bully STAC into providing Stacker for free or cheaply. STAC fought back. Geoff Chappell was involved: https://www.geoffchappell.com/ https://www.geoffchappell.com/ He's the guy that found and published the AARD code MS used to fake Windows 3.1 failing on DR-DOS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code As described here: https://www.zapread.com/Post/Detail/7735/aard-code-or-how-bill-gates-finished-off-the-competition/ https://www.zapread.com/Post/Detail/7735/aard-code-or-how-bi... Discussed on HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26526086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26526086 Especially see this nice little summary: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26529937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26529937 It would be hard to patent this stuff _that_ narrowly. Various companies sold disk compression; note the whole list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_compression#Standalone_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_compression#Standalone_so... MS saw the code, MS copied it, STAC proved it, MS removed it (MS-DOS 6.21) and then added the functionality back (MS-DOS 6.22) after re-implementing the offending code.
- contextfree 4y ago
  All of those links seem to be consistent with my understanding - it was a patent infringement lawsuit and there were no allegations of stolen implementation code?
  - lproven 4y ago
    I think that was simpler the easier thing to convey to code-illiterate lawyers and judges. The quite extensive coverage in the IT press at the time -- pre-WWW -- was that MS demanded the full source from Stac during the "negotiations", and when Stac refused to sign, MS took what it wanted. MS pulled dirty tricks repeatedly in the 1990s. It stole from Stac, it stole from Quicktime. It rewrote Hitachi's license agreement for MS-DOS so that when Hitachi bundled BeOS, it could not make it bootable. It did the same to IBM to make offering a choice of OS/2 difficult to impossible. It lied to Aldus when Aldus started work on a Windows word-processor. It disgracefully pressured AOL to damage Netscape. It lied and covered up efforts to discredit Digital Research. And this stuff needs to be remembered, because it shows the character of the company, which is now giving useless junk out in source code form in its efforts to depict itself as friendly to FOSS. It could not be trusted then, and it can't now.

> DoubleSpace contained stolen STAC code is this true? afaik, the lawsuit Stac won was a patent lawsuit over the compression algorithm - I don't think there was actual implementation code involved.

lproven 4y ago

This is as I understand it. (It's my blog post, BTW.) https://web.archive.org/web/20070509205650/http://www.vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070509205650/http://www.vaxxin... https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-02-24-fi-26671-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-02-24-fi-26671-... https://tedium.co/2018/09/04/disk-compression-stacker-doublespace-history/ https://tedium.co/2018/09/04/disk-compression-stacker-double... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_law... MS bullied Central Point Software into providing the backup and antivirus tools, on the basis of CPS being able to sell upgrades and updates. CPS went out of business. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Point_Software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Point_Software MS attempted to bully STAC into providing Stacker for free or cheaply. STAC fought back. Geoff Chappell was involved: https://www.geoffchappell.com/ https://www.geoffchappell.com/ He's the guy that found and published the AARD code MS used to fake Windows 3.1 failing on DR-DOS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code As described here: https://www.zapread.com/Post/Detail/7735/aard-code-or-how-bill-gates-finished-off-the-competition/ https://www.zapread.com/Post/Detail/7735/aard-code-or-how-bi... Discussed on HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26526086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26526086 Especially see this nice little summary: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26529937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26529937 It would be hard to patent this stuff _that_ narrowly. Various companies sold disk compression; note the whole list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_compression#Standalone_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_compression#Standalone_so... MS saw the code, MS copied it, STAC proved it, MS removed it (MS-DOS 6.21) and then added the functionality back (MS-DOS 6.22) after re-implementing the offending code.

contextfree 4y ago
All of those links seem to be consistent with my understanding - it was a patent infringement lawsuit and there were no allegations of stolen implementation code?
- lproven 4y ago
  I think that was simpler the easier thing to convey to code-illiterate lawyers and judges. The quite extensive coverage in the IT press at the time -- pre-WWW -- was that MS demanded the full source from Stac during the "negotiations", and when Stac refused to sign, MS took what it wanted. MS pulled dirty tricks repeatedly in the 1990s. It stole from Stac, it stole from Quicktime. It rewrote Hitachi's license agreement for MS-DOS so that when Hitachi bundled BeOS, it could not make it bootable. It did the same to IBM to make offering a choice of OS/2 difficult to impossible. It lied to Aldus when Aldus started work on a Windows word-processor. It disgracefully pressured AOL to damage Netscape. It lied and covered up efforts to discredit Digital Research. And this stuff needs to be remembered, because it shows the character of the company, which is now giving useless junk out in source code form in its efforts to depict itself as friendly to FOSS. It could not be trusted then, and it can't now.