Go files antitrust suit against Microsoft

The founder of pen computing pioneer Go filed an antitrust suit against Microsoft, claiming that the software giant violated antitrust laws by trying to thwart Go's attempt to enter the PC operating system market.

The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, was filed on Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco by S. Jerrold Kaplan, Go's founder.

"Microsoft undertook to 'kill' Go by resorting to many of the same collusive and exclusionary tactics Microsoft used against Netscape, Sun, Novell...and others," according to the complaint, which was seen by CNET News.com.

The lawsuit also claims that Microsoft stole Go technology, that the company threatened Intel, which had invested in Go, and that it used "incentives and threats" to coerce Compaq, Fujitsu, Toshiba and other computer makers not to use Go's operating system.

Microsoft spokeswoman Stacy Drake rejected Kaplan's assertions.

"These claims date back nearly 20 years," Drake said on Friday. "They were baseless then and they are baseless now."

Drake noted that handwriting recognition technology "had severe limitations in the late 1980s and early 1990s."

While Microsoft's original pen-enabled version of Windows stirred little interest, the company has continued to pursue handwriting recognition as a means of computer input, most recently with its Windows XP Tablet PC Edition.

The suit came as Microsoft resolved yet another of its outstanding antitrust matters, announcing on Friday that it has made an $850 million deal with IBM. The company has also settled antitrust claims with Sun Microsystems, AOL Time Warner, Gateway, Be and others.

The ill-fated Go was merged into an AT&T subsidiary in 1994. The company's claims were assigned to Lucent in 1996 when that company was split off from AT&T. Kaplan regained the rights to Go's claims in April, according to the lawsuit.

Um, old news

Every computer geek out there knew this happened. Here is the
short version: Go made some technology; I think it was an OS.
MS found out and started an OS to compete with Go and stole
some Go tech. Intel invested in some way in Go, but MS
threatened Intel and Intel dropped Go like a brick. Go went
under and looks like AT&T took them in. MS dropped making
what would compete with Go's tech, thus squashing another
competitor without releasing a product.

[Hernys]

Do you actually have any proof of any of that?

I mean, other than gossip and made up stuff.
Maybe you don't like MS (that's obvious) but making up stuff like that doesn't help your fight. It just makes you look silly.

Um, old news

Every computer geek out there knew this happened. Here is the
short version: Go made some technology; I think it was an OS.
MS found out and started an OS to compete with Go and stole
some Go tech. Intel invested in some way in Go, but MS
threatened Intel and Intel dropped Go like a brick. Go went
under and looks like AT&T took them in. MS dropped making
what would compete with Go's tech, thus squashing another
competitor without releasing a product.

[Hernys]

Do you actually have any proof of any of that?

I mean, other than gossip and made up stuff.
Maybe you don't like MS (that's obvious) but making up stuff like that doesn't help your fight. It just makes you look silly.

[201293546946733175101343322673]

Another Stupid Lawsuit

Enough said :)

[201293546946733175101343322673]

Another Stupid Lawsuit

Enough said :)

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Legal Indemnity anyone?

Guess who is the most egregious violator of
intellectual property? Hint: Their intials are MS.

If your neighborhood had a rash of propert theft
and everyone has an open door policy except for
one home owner, who would be the first suspect?

One of the reasons open source is open, there is
nothing to hide. The opposite is true in closed
source.

Indemnity may be required if you intend to steal
or are buying from a thief.

[System Tyrant]

Open Source

Open Source doesn't mean it hasn't copied code illegally. It would just be easier to prove if it happens. On the same coin, closed source doesn't mean it is hiding stolen code either. They are just two different sides on the coin of software. In my opinion their is room for both.

I still think most companies would benifit greatly from giving away their software and selling services and support. One that I kind of like is paying for updates. In this method you download the program and install it. It runs without product activation or silly codes. If you want to keep it up to date with new features and non security bug fixes then you pay an annual fee.

This method makes since to me because in effect you stop piracy, make money on service and support, and get your product in the hands of the many who can then decide if they want to purchase updates. However, I think security fixes should always be free for the life of the product.

[ntrlsur]

Umm

Guess who is the most egregious violator of
intellectual property? Hint: Their intials are MS.


Actually the answer is the U.S. government followed closely by the british government and china is a distant 3rd. Microsoft might break into the top 10 but I doubt it.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Legal Indemnity anyone?

Guess who is the most egregious violator of
intellectual property? Hint: Their intials are MS.

If your neighborhood had a rash of propert theft
and everyone has an open door policy except for
one home owner, who would be the first suspect?

One of the reasons open source is open, there is
nothing to hide. The opposite is true in closed
source.

Indemnity may be required if you intend to steal
or are buying from a thief.

[System Tyrant]

Open Source

Open Source doesn't mean it hasn't copied code illegally. It would just be easier to prove if it happens. On the same coin, closed source doesn't mean it is hiding stolen code either. They are just two different sides on the coin of software. In my opinion their is room for both.

I still think most companies would benifit greatly from giving away their software and selling services and support. One that I kind of like is paying for updates. In this method you download the program and install it. It runs without product activation or silly codes. If you want to keep it up to date with new features and non security bug fixes then you pay an annual fee.

This method makes since to me because in effect you stop piracy, make money on service and support, and get your product in the hands of the many who can then decide if they want to purchase updates. However, I think security fixes should always be free for the life of the product.

[ntrlsur]

Umm

Guess who is the most egregious violator of
intellectual property? Hint: Their intials are MS.


Actually the answer is the U.S. government followed closely by the british government and china is a distant 3rd. Microsoft might break into the top 10 but I doubt it.

[dbeberman]

Support for Jerry

Having lived through the history of GO, and also lost a company over it, have to say, Good Luck, Jerry. Hope you win this one. PenPoint was a great OS, way ahead of its time, as were the products based on it, and pen-based tablets.

[dbeberman]

Support for Jerry

Having lived through the history of GO, and also lost a company over it, have to say, Good Luck, Jerry. Hope you win this one. PenPoint was a great OS, way ahead of its time, as were the products based on it, and pen-based tablets.