sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (06/19/91)
"In another victory in its controversial copyright battle with software rivals, Lotus Development Corp. said Monday it reached an out-of-court settlement with Santa Cruz Corporation, Inc. [sic], which Lotus accused of illegally copying its 1-2-3 spreadsheet. "As part of the accord, Santa Cruz Operation [sic] will pull its SCO Professional spreadsheet from the market. The company, based in Santa Cruz, also agreed to recommend that its customers switch to 1-2-3 and to help Lotus market 1-2-3 to Professional users." Quoted from the San Jose Mercury News, which got it from The Boston Globe. There's a lot more; I do recommend that people read the article. I also recommend that, if you are of a mind, and either are or might potentially be a customer, that you let SCO know what you think of their action. (Which, unfortunately, are understandable, all things considering.) -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun19.041754.6367@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >"In another victory in its controversial copyright battle with software >rivals, Lotus Development Corp. said Monday it reached an out-of-court >settlement with Santa Cruz Corporation, Inc. [sic], which Lotus accused of >illegally copying its 1-2-3 spreadsheet. > >"As part of the accord, Santa Cruz Operation [sic] will pull its SCO >Professional spreadsheet from the market. The company, based in Santa Cruz, >also agreed to recommend that its customers switch to 1-2-3 and to help >Lotus market 1-2-3 to Professional users." >I also recommend that, if you are of a mind, and either are or might >potentially be a customer, that you let SCO know what you think of their >action. (Which, unfortunately, are understandable, all things considering.) I am more of a mind to let Lotus know what I think of THEIR action :-). I do not have Lotus 1-2-3 on any machine of mine, and will not recommend it to any client of mine. -------------------------------------- ****************************** Orville R. Weyrich, Jr., Ph.D. Certified Systems Professional Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net Weyrich Computer Consulting Voice: (602) 391-0821 POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261 Fax: (602) 391-0023 (Yes! I'm available) -------------------------------------- ******************************
rbraun@spdcc.COM (Rich Braun) (06/20/91)
Ten years ago, I wrote a program called "Trivicalc" for a college course, one which all students had to do as part of that course. It was based on Visicalc, which had a very similar look&feel to Lotus 1-2-3. Many of the ideas Lotus used in 1-2-3 came from Visicalc and other predecessors. It's a sad day when one can't write a program to emulate a popular rival, and make improvements on it (which SCO's product did). Imagine what the car industry would be like if me-too designs were illegal! Your next car would probably look like an Edsel...;-) More technologically astute people need to be elected to office and to enter the judiciary. As long as computers aren't understood by lawmakers and judges, these foolish decisions will keep coming down. Patent laws simply need to be overhauled, at the U.S. and world level. -rich
woan@exeter.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S Woan) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun21.143836.16559@ukpoit.co.uk> alan@ukpoit.co.uk (Alan Barclay) writes: >But it's in Microsoft's intrest for the claim to succeed. These look and >feel cases are good for the big boys and bad for the little guy. >Microsoft aren't going to set a precedent which is going to be bad for >when they decide to sue DR for DR-DOS, or whoever they want to go for. It is definitely not in their interest for Lotus to succeed because any precedent might apply to the Apple/MS lawsuit, and MS hasn't shown any tendency to sue people over look and feel. They'd have a hard time showing new invention with CPM and UNIX predating MSDOS, even were they have copyrighted the interface. I wish companies would just compete by bringing better products to market faster than their competitors rather than by trying to lock people to proprietary interfaces. -- +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan woan@cactus.org or woan@austin.vnet.ibm.com + + other email addresses Prodigy: XTCR74A Compuserve: 73530,2537 +
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) (06/20/91)
>>>>> On 19 Jun 91 04:17:54 GMT, sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) said:
Sean> I also recommend that, if you are of a mind, and either are or
Sean> might potentially be a customer, that you let SCO know what you
Sean> think of their action. (Which, unfortunately, are
Sean> understandable, all things considering.)
It is also very unfortunate. Given that SCO is (partly) owned by
MicroSoft, they would potentially have some real muscle behind them if
they choose to counter the claim.
Too bad.
/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | these things. -- Calvinrcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (06/20/91)
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >...I also recommend that, if you are of a mind, and either are or might > potentially be a customer, that you let SCO know what you think of their > action. (Which, unfortunately, are understandable, all things considering.) That may be of some limited interest to them, but I'm not sure what the point would be. Is there any reason to think that SCO gave in to Lotus for any cause other than being "out-lawyered"? Perhaps, if a lot of folks talked to SCO, it might indicate that their estimate of the effect of the decision was low (i.e., that the loss of SCO Pro will cost them more than they thought)...but I'd think they have a good handle on sales and trends, so they shouldn't get much of a surprise. As you say, under the circumstances it's not surprising that SCO decided as they did. The problem lies elsewhere. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...Simpler is better.
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.234829.7918@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >Is there any reason to think that SCO gave in to Lotus for >any cause other than being "out-lawyered"? Yes. Considering the number of people SCO laid off recently (a subject I won't get into), I suspect the settlement was because SCO did not feel it could afford a lawsuit, no matter what their chances of winning were. As to the point... well, Lotus already knows how various people feel about it. I think it might be time to let the *other* side know how one feels about their capitulating to bogus (IMSHO) copyright issues. Perhaps if SCO and Borland had banded together against Lotus, something could have been done (successfully, that is). As it is, it only reinforces Lotus' position. >As you say, under the circumstances it's not surprising that SCO decided as >they did. The problem lies elsewhere. Yes. But if you don't think that SCO getting a few dozen calls about something like this won't make a difference in future actions, think again. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
twade@llex.ll.mit.edu ( Timothy Wade) (06/20/91)
From an article in InfoWorld, they state that SCO Professional was only 2 percent of their revenues. If this is true, it's not surprising that SCO settled. I was looking at SCO Unix a couple of years ago and my impression was that most of the Programs they sold were developed to entice users to move from DOS to UNIX. Not many commercially available products existed. But now that more and more programs are available on 386 UNIX platforms SCO might be refocusing in on their main offering, UNIX, Networking ... ------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Wade | Internet Address: twade@ll.mit.edu MIT Lincoln Labs | Group 48 | ------------------------------------------------------------
fred@compu.com (Fred Rump) (06/21/91)
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes: >It is also very unfortunate. Given that SCO is (partly) owned by >MicroSoft, they would potentially have some real muscle behind them if >they choose to counter the claim. I would think that SCO did not really wish to get involved in a drawn out suit. It bothers people and especially it bothers investors. I would suspect that SCO would like to go public one of these days and that it doesn't need a lot of garbage hanging around. The Lotus suit is still on against Borland. I believe SCO would rather try to get along with as many people as possible than get into a fight with them. Professional probably wasn't that great of a deal anyway for them, financially I mean. fred -- Fred Rump | 'A little learning is a dangerous thing/Drink deep CompuData, Inc. | or taste not the Pierian spring' Alexander Pope 10501 Drummond Rd. | SCO Advanced Product Center Philadelphia, Pa. 19154| Internet: fred@COMPU.COM (215-824-3000)
chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun19.234829.7918@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >>...I also recommend [...] that you let SCO know what you think of their >> action. (Which, unfortunately, are understandable, all things considering.) > >That may be of some limited interest to them, but I'm not sure what the >point would be. The decision to drop Pro is (as sef said) understandable. I'm still disappointed in SCO's action, but I'm not sure I can tell them how to spend their litigation dollars. What *is* very concerning is the mention in the press release that SCO will help Lotus market 1-2-3 to their customers. Lotus has done a grave injustice to open systems users, and it would be inexcusable for SCO to further the damages done. In the past, I've simply voted with my pocketbook. Maybe a more direct action is required. Let SCO know what you think of them helping Lotus to entrench their software monopoly. While you are at it, let ISC know as well (they appear to be the primary distributor for 1-2-3 for Unix/386). In the meantime, I'm off to evaluate spreadsheet alternatives for clients. If anybody has comments on spreadsheet programs we should be aware of, please post (or email me and I will summarize to the net). -- Chip Rosenthal 512-482-8260 | Closed user interfaces for open systems? Unicom Systems Development | No, thank you. <chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM> | Boycott Lotus Development Corp.
alan@ukpoit.co.uk (Alan Barclay) (06/21/91)
In article <FISCHER.91Jun19230614@abel.iesd.auc.dk> fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes: > [ON SCO dropping their spreadsheet] > >It is also very unfortunate. Given that SCO is (partly) owned by >MicroSoft, they would potentially have some real muscle behind them if >they choose to counter the claim. > But it's in Microsoft's intrest for the claim to succeed. These look and feel cases are good for the big boys and bad for the little guy. Microsoft aren't going to set a precedent which is going to be bad for when they decide to sue DR for DR-DOS, or whoever they want to go for. -- Alan Barclay iT | E-mail : alan@ukpoit.uucp Barker Lane | BANG-STYLE : .....!ukc!ukpoit!alan CHESTERFIELD S40 1DY | VOICE : +44 246 214241
orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) (06/23/91)
In article <1991Jun20.181802.213@chinacat.unicom.com> chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) writes: >In article <1991Jun19.234829.7918@ico.isc.com> > rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >>sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >>>...I also recommend [...] that you let SCO know what you think of their >>> action. (Which, unfortunately, are understandable, all things considering.) >> >>That may be of some limited interest to them, but I'm not sure what the >>point would be. > >The decision to drop Pro is (as sef said) understandable. I'm still >disappointed in SCO's action, but I'm not sure I can tell them how to >spend their litigation dollars. What *is* very concerning is the >mention in the press release that SCO will help Lotus market 1-2-3 to >their customers. Lotus has done a grave injustice to open systems >users, and it would be inexcusable for SCO to further the damages >done. Perhaps it is time for us folks who favor open systems to define a spreadsheet interface that will be safe from Lotus, and make it available to anyone that does not produce a spreadsheet product with a copyrighted interface. Does anyone know what exact features Lotus claims to own? > >In the meantime, I'm off to evaluate spreadsheet alternatives for >clients. Amen, brother ! :-). I think that this CAN be effective. I haven't heard much from SEAware lately, but I think that Phil Katz is doing OK. My feeling is that Apple alienated a lot of potential users by their "windows" lawsuit. Does anyone have any hard data to back up these feelings that I have? ========== BTW, someone mentioned something about Borland also capitulating to Lotus. What is the story on this? -------------------------------------- ****************************** Orville R. Weyrich, Jr., Ph.D. Certified Systems Professional Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net Weyrich Computer Consulting Voice: (602) 391-0821 POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261 Fax: (602) 391-0023 (Yes! I'm available) -------------------------------------- ******************************
orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) (06/23/91)
In article <1991Jun21.143836.16559@ukpoit.co.uk> alan@ukpoit.co.uk (Alan Barclay) writes: >In article <FISCHER.91Jun19230614@abel.iesd.auc.dk> fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes: >> >[ON SCO dropping their spreadsheet] >> >>It is also very unfortunate. Given that SCO is (partly) owned by >>MicroSoft, they would potentially have some real muscle behind them if >>they choose to counter the claim. >> > >But it's in Microsoft's intrest for the claim to succeed. These look and >feel cases are good for the big boys and bad for the little guy. >Microsoft aren't going to set a precedent which is going to be bad for >when they decide to sue DR for DR-DOS, or whoever they want to go for. I would love to see MS try that -- MS-DOS itself started out as a clone of DR's popular [at the time] CP/M operating system. But of course, DR can't complain too loudly itself, as CP/M is very reminiscent of DEC's RSX (and perhaps other earlier DEC operating systems). -------------------------------------- ****************************** Orville R. Weyrich, Jr., Ph.D. Certified Systems Professional Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net Weyrich Computer Consulting Voice: (602) 391-0821 POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261 Fax: (602) 391-0023 (Yes! I'm available) -------------------------------------- ******************************
geoff@ITcorp.com (Geoff Kuenning) (06/24/91)
In article <1991Jun22.223038.4257@weyrich.UUCP> orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) writes: > I would love to see MS try that -- MS-DOS itself started out as a clone of > DR's popular [at the time] CP/M operating system. But of course, DR can't > complain too loudly itself, as CP/M is very reminiscent of DEC's RSX > (and perhaps other earlier DEC operating systems). This claim is rather weak, to say the least. Even a cursory comparison of DOS V1 with CP/M would show that it's not a clone. A bit of investigation into the history would support this conclusion. As for CP/M being reminiscent of RSX, the only similarity is in the name of the program "PIP". On the other hand, CP/M is *very* similar to RT-11; it's quite clear that Kildall had been using RT-11 shortly before he wrote CP/M and borrowed a number of ideas from that system. -- Geoff Kuenning geoff@ITcorp.com uunet!desint!geoff
alan@ukpoit.co.uk (Alan Barclay) (06/24/91)
In article <1991Jun22.223038.4257@weyrich.UUCP> orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) writes: >In article <1991Jun21.143836.16559@ukpoit.co.uk> alan@ukpoit.co.uk (Alan Barclay) writes: >>In article <FISCHER.91Jun19230614@abel.iesd.auc.dk> fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes: >>> >>[ON SCO dropping their spreadsheet] >>> >>>It is also very unfortunate. Given that SCO is (partly) owned by >>>MicroSoft, they would potentially have some real muscle behind them if >>>they choose to counter the claim. >>> >> >>But it's in Microsoft's intrest for the claim to succeed. These look and >>feel cases are good for the big boys and bad for the little guy. >>Microsoft aren't going to set a precedent which is going to be bad for >>when they decide to sue DR for DR-DOS, or whoever they want to go for. > >I would love to see MS try that -- MS-DOS itself started out as a clone of >DR's popular [at the time] CP/M operating system. But of course, DR can't >complain too loudly itself, as CP/M is very reminiscent of DEC's RSX >(and perhaps other earlier DEC operating systems). > Just as 123 is a clone of visicalc....... -- Alan Barclay iT | E-mail : alan@ukpoit.uucp Barker Lane | BANG-STYLE : .....!ukc!ukpoit!alan CHESTERFIELD S40 1DY | VOICE : +44 246 214241
doug@netcom.COM (Doug Merritt) (06/25/91)
In article <1991Jun24.074048.8539@ITcorp.com> geoff@ITcorp.com (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >name of the program "PIP". On the other hand, CP/M is *very* similar >to RT-11; it's quite clear that Kildall had been using RT-11 shortly >before he wrote CP/M and borrowed a number of ideas from that system. That doesn't say much for RT-11! ;-) I did like PIP, though, even coming *from* a UNIX background originally (about the *only* thing that I could say something good about...) The idea of being able to apply wildcards to "not-yet-existing files" is a nice one, which unfortunately doesn't fit the otherwise-powerful Unix paradigm for wildcards. I can't say that DOS has really taken off and run with that 1975 idea, though. (sigh) Digression? What digression? Doug -- Doug Merritt doug@netcom.com (apple!netcom!doug) -or- sun.com!jfrank!doug -or- doug@eris.berkeley.edu Professional Wild-eyed Visionary Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (06/25/91)
In article <1991Jun24.074048.8539@ITcorp.com> geoff@ITcorp.com (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >In article <1991Jun22.223038.4257@weyrich.UUCP> orville@weyrich.UUCP >(Orville R. Weyrich) writes: > >> I would love to see MS try that -- MS-DOS itself started out as a clone of >> DR's popular [at the time] CP/M operating system. But of course, DR can't >> complain too loudly itself, as CP/M is very reminiscent of DEC's RSX >> (and perhaps other earlier DEC operating systems). > >This claim is rather weak, to say the least. Even a cursory >comparison of DOS V1 with CP/M would show that it's not a clone. A >bit of investigation into the history would support this conclusion. But you did not mention the history. DOS is a decendanct of CPM. When Seattle Computer Products introduced their 8086 based S-100 system board they supported it with a derivative of CPM. Later when IBM approached Microsoft they took the Seattle Computer Products OS (sometimes called QDOS - Quick 'n' Dirty Operating System) and re-worked and renamed it PC-DOS. A decendant of CPM would be appropriate - that is why it appeared to be "clone-like". I remember when SCP release that board and thinking it would be "neat" to have, but stayed with my Z80 based CCS system. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: ...!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
wtm@uhura.neoucom.EDU (Bill Mayhew) (06/30/91)
Mircrosoft MS-DOS (formerly Seattle Ssytems QDOS) bears more than a passing similarity to Digital Research CP/M-86 (Control Program for Microprocessors). The -86 version of CP/M was designed for the Intel 80x86 series of CPUs. The FCB (File Control Block) methodology of accessing files in MS-DOS was pretty much wholesale lifted from CP/M at the code interface level. Basically you load a register with the function code, then do a long jump to the DOS handler. This worked in both CP/M and DOS at least up through DOS version 2.11. I don't know the level of similarity of code internal to early DOS and CP/M-86. I recall that to get CP/M-86 Wordstar 2.5 to run in MS-DOS, one only had to patch one byte in the executable. The other area of amusement is that the TOS+GEM interface on the Atari ST computers is more than slightly reminiscent of MS-DOS interrupt functions.. For Microsoft and Digital Research to be competitors, there seems to be a surprising level of cross-fertilization in their products. Bill -- Bill Mayhew NEOUCOM Computer Services Department Rootstown, OH 44272-9995 USA phone: 216-325-2511 wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu ....!uunet!aablue!neoucom!wtm via internet: (140.220.001.001)