Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Swordmaker
How do you then explain the Stacker code found in Disk Doubler? How about one of Stacker's coder's mother's name still left in the code? They didn't even file off the serial numbers!

Silly, silly little man: You've been taken in by urban myth scam artists with an axe to grind against M$. That nonsense is simply false. Here's a clue: If Stac had proof of such chicanery, it would have sued M$ not only for patent infringement -- but also copyright violation. Stac didn't do that -- because no such code exists.
96 posted on 05/28/2005 12:13:50 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]


To: Bush2000
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.

109 posted on 05/28/2005 10:35:14 PM PDT by Swordmaker (tagline now open, please ring bell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson