4 ms·
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 cod
by 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 agoI 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.