[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Does Microsoft thwart Intel initiatives?
> I remember Bryan Smith's take on Intel and it's Linux initiatives at
Don't bring that up again. Some people don't seem to give any credence
to my history in the aerospace, publishing and semiconductor fields at
the time, and seeing it unfold nearly "first hand." At the same time,
I'm actually labelled a "Microsoft _defender_" by many people in the
Linux community. And Microsoft has offered me several jobs in the past.
But some people just don't want to believe what is happening. I'm
neither a Microsoft "deamonizer" or a "defender," I'm just tell you
_flat_out_ what the company does to "stay competitive." I don't make
this stuff up. And much of it is not flat out "illegal" either. Highly
unethical, yes. But not illegal.
> I am getting the feeling that the patent software industry is more
> like the Mafia and that Mr. Gates is "boss of bosses".
Have you read some of the DirectX licensing agreements?
Case-in-point: Microsoft is gobbling up every OpenGL patent they can.
Everyone bashes nVidia on why they don't release Freedomware drivers
with hardware accelerated GLX. They did back in the XFree86 3.3.x
days and almost got their pants sued off by a "particular company"
out of Redmond. ;-ppp
> Excerpt from
> The documents also suggest that Microsoft sought to pressure Intel
The difference between Microsoft and Intel is that the latter _knows_ when
to concede things to the government and other private entities. The former
does not, often leading to not only an arrogant attitude that offends all
other entities, but often a "warped reality" where they will knowingly
falsify documents. Need we revisit the "false evidence" of a so-called
"Windows system with MS IE removed?" in the recent DOJ trial?
> to cancel its plans to invest in Go. On June 28, 1990, Mr. Gates wrote a
> letter to Mr. Grove trying to convince the Intel executive that he
> should back a version of Windows for portable computers, then code-named
> Windows-H, rather than Go's PenPoint software.
> "I guess I've made it very clear that we view an Intel investment in Go
> as an anti-Microsoft move, both because Go competes with our systems
> software and because we think it will weaken the 386 PC standard," Mr.
> Gates wrote.
It got worse. You should _read_ up on the fate of young Go.
It seems they were involved with some particular litigation with a company
out of Redmond. They ran out of funds before they could see their lawsuit
FYI, if you use the "PocketPC" operating system, fka "Windows CE," you're
using unlicensed Go technology. Yes, the "Windows-H" is nothing more than,
well, "borrowed" Go technology. ;-ppp
Microsoft has done this to many companies. Companies are stupid enough to
let Microsoft engineers into their designs and IP _before_ the deal is
complete, and then wonder why Microsoft doesn't license and mysteriously
comes out with their own, "original" design that looks _exactly_ like
Sometimes I don't even think it is Microsoft doing it on purpose. Many
Microsoft engineers have been caught by management doing this. They go
out to a potential licensee of technology, and then Microsoft then decides
to not go on with the deal. But the MS engineer just keeps on designing,
based on the partially transfered technology from the potential licensee.
Once the fits hits the shan, MS legal "bean counters" decide that they can
"hold out" much longer than the small entity, so they go ahead and ship
the unlicensed product, despite the clear unethical result.
It's nothing new, it happens to a lot of companies in _many_
industries. Big company steals the IP from a small company, under the
guise (possibly almost a ligitemate one at first) of a potential
Anyone who has followed the design of the original MS Erogomic Mouse
knows that this is the story of about 50% of Microsoft's products. Same
deal with Micrografx and the original OS/2-Win32 libraries, and
countless other products/technologies out there.
DISCLAIMER: Never believe a word I say. Research on your own to find
out if what I say is indeed true. I am not here for anything but my
own, selfish purposes and any possible entertainment value.
P.S. Some can even make the argument that IBM did the same with SCO, by
withholding the IA-64 port of Project Monterey, because they believed
SCO would go under before any lawsuit would be completed. But, as we
learned later, IBM didn't realize that SCO would then turn around and
open up the whole lawsuit to Linux IP -- thus resulting in all that
"fun" we're now having. ;-ppp
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- Engineer, Technologist, School Teacher
To unsubscribe, send email to email@example.com with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.