Did Timothy Paterson steal CP/M to make DOS?
Quentin David Jones
This chap claims that Paterson essentially
stole CPM as he had source code from working
on the Microsoft Z80 CP/M card for the Apple.
I don't know if it is true, but these are
serious issues and I would like to know if
someone here knows the details...
Exactly how did Paterson come up with Q-DOS
or whatever it was called? and why, exactly,
is it so similar to CP/M?
Can someone here help out with the history?
QuentinJ
Two posts from comp.realtime follow:
bill_h <bil...@sunsouthwest.com> wrote in message
news:382C38...@sunsouthwest.com...
> Don't you suppose a person who worked on
development of the
> Microsoft Z80 card that was used to put CP/M
capability onto
> the Apple II would have *some* serious
*intimate* knowledge
> of the operating systems involved?
>
> In the book ''Hard Drive'', it says Paul Allen
hired Timothy
> Paterson to work on that card. And that when he
was unable to
> complete the project another group was assigned
the task.
>
> Since this was AT LEAST two years before the
IBM/DOS/CP/M
> fiasco, clearly Bill Gates was telling a major
LIE when he
> said, in 'Triumph Of The Nerds', that Paterson
was just 'some
> guy that Paul knew' who just happened to have
''written''
> this operating system so Microsoft could buy it.
>
> This episode is layer upon layer of LIES. Once
we get to SEE
> the actual source codes involved, hopefully
we'll find out what
> really went on. Or, Paterson/Microsoft will be
manufacturing
> a piece of evidence that can land them all in
prison.
>
> Bear in mind that Paterson didn't actually rip
off CP/M by copying
> OBJECT CODE, he had access to the SOURCE. That
means he could read
> Kildall's comments about what needed to be done,
and how it was done.
>
> This is a level of theft that's almost
unprecedented, since source
> code is usually carefully guarded under lock and
key (except Linux!).
>
> In 1984 I worked at a software publishing house,
and one of our
> conditions for handling a product was to be
given the SOURCE for
> whatever we were publishing. And from personal
experience I can
> tell you authors would HOWL at that requirement.
We kept their
> source code in a safe. UNTIL the company went
bankrupt and everything
> was just dumped into a big pile and sold at a
warehouse sale.
>
> For those interested, that was Software
Strategies, Inc (SSI).
>
> In case you're wondering what ever happened to
your program(s).
>
> Bill
> Tucson
bill_h <bil...@sunsouthwest.com> wrote in message
news:382DD8...@sunsouthwest.com...
> Thanks for the legal details.
>
> It's worth noting that where Seattle Computer
appears to have
> registered nothing, and Microsoft very very
little, DRI
> in fact filed over a hundred copyright
registrations.
>
> And something people generally seem to be
unaware of, in this
> thread, is the FACT that Microsoft had signed a
licensing agreement
> for CP/M that quite explicitly forbade reverse
engineering and
> disassembly of CP/M, which was the only means
POSSIBLE for Paterson
> to 'discover' the internals of CP/M so that it
COULD be cloned.
>
> Put that fact; together with the fact that
Paterson worked on the
> softcard in 1978 (+/-); and the fact that Paul
Allen hired him for
> that work; and the fact that Paterson
'developed' 86-DOS which later
> became PC- and MS- DOS; there's omly so much
leeway before some
> pretty inescapable conclusions begin to emerge.
>
> A close inspection of known facts, as I've been
trying to point
> out, make clear both Microsoft's violation of
their own signed
> agreement, AND the clear theft of intellectual
property that
> represents.
>
> Microsoft, and Paterson in particular, have been
trying to spin
> this story away for almost twenty years.
>
> It IS NOT going to go away, because it is true.
>
>
> What amazes me is that not one of those people
charged with 'theft'
> of Microsoft products, in particular DOS and/or
Windows, has (as far
> as I know) raised the defense that those
products are based on the
> prior work of someone else, challenging MS'
right to recovery on
> something they don't actually own.
>
> A skilled defendant could pick apart such a
claim, and actually get the
> case dismissed if MS did NOT clearly exclude
certain things in their
> claim. Since (again, as far as I know) MS has
NEVER limited it's claims
> to any part of DOS or Windows, we can assume
they're not about to start.
>
Quentin David Jones
sorry about the stuffed-up word-wrap
quotes, it wasn't done at my end...
I just noted the original discussion
in this group too, I hope listeners
will forgive me starting a new thread
but this is an important issue.
QuentinJ
G.S. Vigneault
<rjon...@cc.curtin.edu.au> wrote:
>Exactly how did Paterson come up with Q-DOS
>or whatever it was called? and why, exactly,
>is it so similar to CP/M?
Because there was a boat-load of CP/M software and developers. A
CP/M-like operating system (MS-DOS) would be attractive to them, and
facilitate porting applications and personnel.
Greg_
http://home.korax.net/~telic
November 16, 1999
______________________________________________________________
Posted via Uncensored-News.Com, http://www.uncensored-news.com
Only $8.95 A Month, - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
anon...@bogus_address.con
On 1999-11-16 rjon...@cc.curtin.edu.au said:
>This chap claims that Paterson essentially stole CPM as he had source code
>from working on the Microsoft Z80 CP/M card for the Apple. I don't know
>if it is true, but these are serious issues and I would like to know if
>someone here knows the details...
>Exactly how did Paterson come up with Q-DOS or whatever it was called?
>and why, exactly, is it so similar to CP/M?
>Can someone here help out with the history?
>QuentinJ
This subject has been =extensively= hashed and re-hashed in the COMP.OS.CPM
newsgroup. Rather than start yet another re-hash, perhaps you could go to
a newsgroup archive such as DEJANEWS and read the previous correspondence
on the matter.
Might also be prudent to use a large degree of circumspection in one's
phraseology. Libel can be an ugly thing...for ALL parties involved! :)
Quentin David Jones
<anonymous@bogus_address.con> wrote in message
news:80sa02$qde$1...@q.seanet.com...
> This subject has been =extensively= hashed and
re-hashed in the COMP.OS.CPM
> newsgroup. Rather than start yet another
re-hash, perhaps you could go to
> a newsgroup archive such as DEJANEWS and read
the previous correspondence
> on the matter.
Yep, thanks, I'd better read a bit more...
> Might also be prudent to use a large degree of
circumspection in one's
> phraseology. Libel can be an ugly thing...for
ALL parties involved! :)
Indeed yes, Bill's statement's were so bold I
thought it must have been dealt with, yet a Web
search produced very little.
QuentinJ