This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@cygnus.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
>>>>> "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 ------