FW: Results of "downloading compressed program images" request

["Robert J. Brown" <rj@eli.elilabs.com>]

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian Cuthie <brian@systemix.com> writes:

    Brian> Oh, right.  This worked really well for IBM in the 1980's.

    Brian> Their problem was that they executed *exactly* the plan you
    Brian> espouse.  They opened not only the hardware (I had a PC and
    Brian> still have the original IBM PC Technical Reference Manual),
    Brian> but also gave away the source to the ROM BIOS.  Since the
    Brian> OS was available from a third party (Microsoft), they were
    Brian> all but out of the PC business within four years because of
    Brian> competition from clone makers.

I am a personal friend of the lawyer that did the IP work for the
patents on the original PC.  I have worked with him both as a client,
and as an expert witness.  What IBM did was very calculated, and it
*DID* work.  If they had been closed with their system, they would not 
have sold as many PC's as they did, and nobody would be using them.
We would still be running Z80's with CP/M, or some offshoot of that.

Consider the PC Junior, and the microchannel PC, both from IBM.  They
kept these architectures closed, and *NOBODY* uses them.  They were
*FAR* more successful with the open approach.  The whole world has
made more money, not just IBM.

The suit I was involved with as expert witness was about an embedded
system and the operating system in the bios on the motherboard, as
well as the hardware.  The end result of that suit was that the
interfaces between a software product and its users -- the API, if you
will (but it goes farther than that) -- is not protectable IP.

The Lotus v Borland suit on the command keystrokes to operate a
spreadsheet was decided in favor of Borland because of this suit I was
involved in.  These keystroke sequences constitute an interface, and
hence are not protectable IP.  I feel this was the correct decision.
If the folks that wrote VP-planner were still in business, they would
probably appeal the decision that went against them over exactly the
same issue.  Too bad their suit came up before mine did.  Good thing
mine came up before Lotus v Borland.

-- 
--------  "And there came a writing to him from Elijah"  [2Ch 21:12]  --------
Robert Jay Brown III rj@eli.elilabs.com  http://www.elilabs.com 1 847 705-0424
Elijah Laboratories Inc.;  37 South Greenwood Avenue;  Palatine, IL 60067-6328
-----  M o d e l i n g   t h e   M e t h o d s   o f   t h e   M i n d  ------