FYI : Google only came to be late 1998, so at that point MSN Search results compared to Google is something that never happened.

[The idea that web search in 1998 was in any way similar to the current concept of web search and how it is used by consumers, and its importance in commerce, ect, is simply a false comparison. The simple fact is that Microsoft search (since its branded origins in 1998) were never comparable to Google's, which also originated in 1998. The market's history makes that clear even for people with a revisionist bent who suggest that Google was first to market, and that Microsoft just started trying with "Bing." - Dan ]

“And I will repeat – this had nothing to do with the Caldera case, it happened a long time before DR-DOS was released as a product even. I was told it was the basis for Digital being able to offer DR-DOS as a product.”

And I guess that is the point. The articles asserts settlement over anticompetitive practices AND stealing code when there is little to no evidence as to the former except for folklore.

By public interface, I mean the Interrupt vector that was exposed by the OS to it’s applications, due to which an app could run on the platform. Tim patterson, who wasnt even in Microsoft at that time, wrote an OS from ground up that exposed the same interrupts, so all apps written for DR-DOS could also be run on his OS.

Now, some people have proposed that even writing software from the ground up, that cloned the public interface of another piece of software, is copying, because copyright law at that time wasnt clear on this issue. However, as Tim says in his blog, this issue was never brought to trial, so it was never decided one way or the other. Also, it is worth noting, that even DR-DOS didnt sue his company for copyright.

Um, did you read what I wrote? According to what I was told, Digital Research did sure Microsoft, and the suit was settled under a Non-Disclosure Agreement, which specified that none of the parties was allowed to comment on the case. Now, I cannot prove this, however 25 years ago when I was told about it, a lot of people in the industry believed it was true.

If Tim Patterson implemented the CP/M API on his own, that would be fine. If he used DRI source code to do this, it wouldn’t be. While Tim swears he didn’t use DRI code, and that there was no law suit, as I stated earlier, a Non-Disclosure Agreement can force you to lie.

That said, there’s no doubt that he could have implemented the CP/M API on his own, it’s not as if CP/M was a complicated operating system. We don’t know that he did. We don’t know that he didn’t. We don’t know.

And I will repeat – this had nothing to do with the Caldera case, it happened a long time before DR-DOS was released as a product even. I was told it was the basis for Digital being able to offer DR-DOS as a product.

Now, some people have proposed that even writing software from the ground up, that cloned the public interface of another piece of software, is copying, because copyright law at that time wasnt clear on this issue. However, as Tim says in his blog, this issue was never brought to trial, so it was never decided one way or the other. Also, it is worth noting, that even DR-DOS didnt sue his company for copyright.

I agree that a lot of illegal activity happened in MS in this case, esp regarding insertion of the AARD code to break compatibility from DR-DOS. And as you mentioned, a lot of this has been litigated and MS has been found guilty as charged.

While the Caldera case was going on, all the discovery documents about this made very interesting reading. It is ironic that MS sought to break compatibility from Windows 3.1 with DR-DOS, whereas what got DOS started to begin with, was the compatibility between it and DR-DOS as far as the apps were concerned.

http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2004/08/12/213681.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2004/08/13/214338.aspx

[Microsoft's assurance that "we would neeeeeever do anything to hurt our own developers!" is a bit hard to swallow given the documented cases of Microsoft doing just that: DOS/Stacker, QuickTime SF Canyon theft and then IE blockades , WordPerfect and Lotus on the OS/2 bait and switch, and even more recent events like PlaysForSure.

You might as well defend the hypocrisy of Republican congressmen who were outraged about Clinton while cheating on their own wives by saying "but their religion condemns adultery and holds them to a higher standard!" Clearly that's not the case. Being able to fabricate an excuse is not the same as not being guilty. ]

Also, note that Tim Patterson implemented his version by writing an OS that just exposed the same public interfaces that CP/M exposed. This is similar to how many projects implement functionality pioneered by other companies, for eg, Wine project, as well as Compaq’s reverse engineering of the IBM PC-BIOS. I dont understand how you can claim that this is same as copying, or “selling an unauthorized copy”.

[So in your mind, Microsoft developed an original code base overnight to replicate the functionality of CP/M, along the lines of the fantasy apocryphal story at the time time that Bill Gates wrote it on the back of a napkin because he was such a genius, rather than the more obvious reality that Gates' rich mom had a hookup with IBM and he managed buy out a clone of CP/M?

The point of course isn't to put Microsoft on trial as a company that does illegal, immoral, anti-competitive things. That's already happen and Microsoft was convicted. Its also repeatedly settled to avoid prosecution in many many other cases. My point is that Microsoft hasn't ever been a creative innovator in the tech industry, but merely rips off and resells other people's work. - Dan]

As regards that hotkey combination, that shows that DOS was an illegal copy of DRDOS, there is no evidence of it.

When you say that MS sold an “unathorized copy” you are implying something illegal happened. That is not the case here. Implementing a piece of software that adheres to public interfaces is a very standard practice in the S/W industry.

[There was no such thing as a public interface in CP/M in the early 80s. Be aware that the software industry is changing and has changed dramatically. The only constant has been that Microsoft has always been a third rate company cheating its way into the lead, and destroying human potential in technology in the process. You don't need to defend its illegal conduct or make excuses for it. ]

Cheers, again.

FWIW, Kildall’s camp said they never did sue over code theft

The current owner of Digital Research.biz is Max Frame, a computer consulting firm that is operated by Jim R. Benfer Jr. What connection, if any, he has to Digital Research is not shown on either the MaxFrame or Digital Research websites. Based on that, it looks like the Digital Research site is a fan site, rather than an “Official” site.

Tim Patterson has written about his experiences here. However there is the NDA. I don’t know if you’ve ever signed an NDA, however I have, and the joke at work was that I’d signed so many NDA’s that I was no longer allowed to tell anyone my real name. In other words, an NDA can require you to lie.

So I’ll go with what I’ve been told. The people who told me about this didn’t appear to have any reason to lie. Of course its possible that they may not have known the truth either, and with Gary dead, and Bill having a reputation for taking liberties with the truth, a definitive answer may not be possible.

http://www.digitalresearch.biz/DR/Gary/newsx011.html

I just wanted to clear up whether Microsoft settled over stealing DRIs code – to me it looks like they never did.

Re the extent of Windows messing with DR-DOS in the 90s. I can accept that some pretty dodgy things happened there. I’m not one way of the other with Windows or Mac. I am not trying to wind anyone up. Just looking for some truths.

Thanks, all.