That nonsense is simply false. Here's a clue: If Stac had proof of such chicanery, it would have sued M$ not only for patent infringement -- but also copyright violation. Stac didn't do that -- because no such code exists. Excuse me Bush2000... I guess I should believe your hype rather than my memory of the conversation I had with the Stac programer (and part owner) who told me this "urban legend" in a conversation I had with him shortly after Microsoft bought them out. No, I think I will believe my memory...
Your clue is ludicrous. Stac Electronics didn't bring a "copyright suit" because they didn't copyright their software... the PATENTED IT!
A Patent infringement lawsuit is a much more potent lawsuit than copyright infringement, Bush. Copyright may be extablished merely by claiming it on the printed form of the newly created document. PATENTS require a much higher level of certification before being granted. A Patent has to be registered, a copyright does not although it can be.
And you are aware that Microsoft LOST that suit? $120 million dollar award, IIRC... which they then converted to a buy out to avoid paying future royalties. The fact that the programer's mother's name was IN the Microsoft version was the proof that made the case.
Stac Electronics sued Microsoft for patent infringement when Microsoft introduced a data compression scheme into MS-DOS which resembled Stac's Stacker software. Stac was awarded $120 million by a jury in 1994 and Microsoft was ordered to recall versions of MS-DOS with the infringing technology. Subsequently Microsoft and Stac settled the case; Microsoft promised not to appeal, paid Stac $43 million, and purchased $40 million of preferred Stac stock.
You don't pay out that kind of money unless your fingers were caught in the cookie jar.
Excuse me Bush2000... I guess I should believe your hype rather than my memory of the conversation I had with the Stac programer (and part owner) who told me this "urban legend" in a conversation I had with him shortly after Microsoft bought them out. No, I think I will believe my memory...
You can believe whatever you want. But since the rest of us have no way of corroborating your so-called conversations with your imaginary friends, you'll just have to provide proof if you want to rely upon that as "evidence". The fact of the matter is that none of that crap is reflected in the court record, so the only conclusion that one can reach is that it's either delusional or outright BS.
Your clue is ludicrous. Stac Electronics didn't bring a "copyright suit" because they didn't copyright their software... the PATENTED IT!
I always get a kick out of listening to IP-challenged newbies trying to tread water. Here's a clue:
"Copyright is a protection that covers published and unpublished literary, scientific and artistic works, whatever the form of expression, provided such works are fixed in a tangible or material form. This means that if you can see it, hear it and/or touch it - it may be protected. If it is an essay, if it is a play, if it is a song, if it is a funky original dance move, if it is a photograph, HTML coding or a computer graphic that can be set on paper, recorded on tape or saved to a hard drive, it may be protected. Copyright laws grant the creator the exclusive right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the work publicly. Exclusive means only the creator of such work, not anybody who has access to it and decides to grab it."
It is not necessary to register a copyright with the US Copyright Office in order to secure copyright protection. All that you have to do is supply a copyright notice in the source code, UI, discs, and manual. It's simply not credible for you to argue that Stac didn't copyright its work. ALL software is copyrighted.
A Patent infringement lawsuit is a much more potent lawsuit than copyright infringement, Bush. Copyright may be extablished merely by claiming it on the printed form of the newly created document. PATENTS require a much higher level of certification before being granted. A Patent has to be registered, a copyright does not although it can be.
Are you not aware that a plaintiff can bring multiple complaints against a defendant? Stac's attorneys would have filed as many complaints against M$ as they could -- the equivalent of throwing sh*t against the wall in the hope that some will stick. Sorry, no copyright infringment complaint was filed. So, obviously, any literal theft of code never happened. Which was my original point.
And you are aware that Microsoft LOST that suit? $120 million dollar award, IIRC... which they then converted to a buy out to avoid paying future royalties. The fact that the programer's mother's name was IN the Microsoft version was the proof that made the case.
You neglected to mention a few things, for obvious reasons (doesn't jibe with your bogus thesis)...
- The jury found that the injury to Stac by M$ wasn't willful. Meaning, not intentional. If there had been literal theft of code, the jury would have found the injury to be willful. They didn't. That should tell you something.
- The court ordered *Stac* to pay M$ $13.6 million for theft of its technology by Stac. Duh. You forgot to mention that. Why? Could it be because it takes the wind out of Stac's sails in portraying itself as the hapless victim?
- I can't find a single reference in the court documents to M$ leaving the name of some programmer's mother's name in source code. Why don't you just admit right now that you can't prove such a contention -- so that you can avoid appearing to be a BS artist. [Note: We both know that you'll just ignore this request because you don't have squat]