Microsoft will get $25 for each ECS CD?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

David Frank

unread,
May 22, 2001, 8:23:42 AM5/22/01
to
Just a reminder for all you anti-MS types here planning on giving Serenity
Systems $$$
for a fix-packed Warp4 (aka ECS) CD.

IBM/Serenity is obligated to pay to MS a license fee (approx. $25) for the
only practical feature they use in Warp
(WIN-OS2) which runs Warp'ees obsolete 16-bit windows 3.x crap apps.


Bob St.John

unread,
May 22, 2001, 8:40:42 AM5/22/01
to
Uh .. no. The royalties on WinOS2 ran out years ago. In fact, if IBM wanted
to, they could market Win3.1 themselves with no revenue to MS .. and considered
doing that in 1997.

Regards,
Bob St.John

Donavon Pfeiffer Jr

unread,
May 21, 2001, 9:01:52 PM5/21/01
to

David Frank wrote:

Don't you have some really bloated apps to play with or some other
really productive way to spend your time? Oh, and by the way has M$ finally
gotten around to using the same standard way of dealing with mixed mode
statements in VC++ that the rest of the world uses for C++ instead of the exact
opposite(rest of world=convert smaller data type to match larger,M$ =truncate
larger to match smaller and produce "Possible Precision Errors" on compile)?
Or is code(data storage) bloat still enforced even at this low level.


femm...@nospam.houston.rr.com

unread,
May 22, 2001, 9:04:59 AM5/22/01
to
In <iTsO6.288363$o9.44...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, on 05/22/01


IBM has owned Win3.1 since 1997 dufus.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fred Emmerich
femm...@houston.rr.com
-----------------------------------------------------------

David Frank

unread,
May 22, 2001, 9:55:23 AM5/22/01
to
IBM got rights to WIN-OS2 source at time of divorce, albeit with per copy
royalty fees..
Not owning much of the OS/2 source is reason IBM currently gives to those
who demand they
release it to open developers..

How about a reference backing your statement that IBM no longer pays MS fees
for each Warp4
they sell?

Bob St.John

unread,
May 22, 2001, 10:09:43 AM5/22/01
to
If you want a copy of an agreement, you would have to speak to one of the
principals, IBM or MS.

Regards,
Bob St.John
Serenity Systems

David Frank

unread,
May 22, 2001, 10:27:34 AM5/22/01
to
Not necessary to ask IBM or MS, when its easy to see why IBM cant
arbitrarily release source
since someone once reported a few years back that a majority of modules have
a
Microsoft copyright notice embedded..

Bob St.John" <Sere...@Augustmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B0A7326...@Augustmail.com...

David D. Huff Jr.

unread,
May 22, 2001, 10:37:19 AM5/22/01
to
Bob St.John wrote:


Bob St. John speaks for both M$ and IBM unless ask him to qualify his
statements.

Not that I would want to sit on the same side of Hell with Bob St. John,
but as memory serves me. The split went like this:

1.) MickeySoft got full rights to MS-DOS and any collaboration software
via IBM.
2.) IBM got full rights to IBM DOS and the rights to enhance but only to
a certain extent. Remember only MS-DOS and IBM DOS could run windows
without a patch after M$ sabotaged the Win3.1 release so a much superior
Digital Research DOS would not run. (It only took them a few days to
create and distribute the patch, of course I had both).
3.) IBM got full rights to Win3.1 after (2 or 3) years. They could use
but not extend. But, the first thing they did was rush the source to
Canada so they could run it through the Watcom compiler. Win-OS2 was
almost as fast on OS/2 2.1 as Win3.1 once the shell was initiated. But,
Damn! only if you had like 32 Mb to work with!

But, Mr. Frank ask the question how much money is surrendered to M$
everytime someone purchases HPFS-386 and you'll get a whole different story.


Brad BARCLAY

unread,
May 22, 2001, 11:13:52 AM5/22/01
to
David Frank wrote:
>
> IBM got rights to WIN-OS2 source at time of divorce, albeit with per copy
> royalty fees..
> Not owning much of the OS/2 source is reason IBM currently gives to those
> who demand they
> release it to open developers..

There is a difference between having to pay for access to source, and
having the necessary IP rights to release that source to the public.

I don't know anything about IBM's deal with Microsoft in terms of Win
3.1 source -- however, it's completely conceivable that IBM has
royalty-free rights to the Win3.1 source, but that MS retains
intellectual property rights to the code -- which means that IBM could
use the source for free, but can't release it to the public.

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail: bbar...@ca.ibm.com Location: 2G43D@Torolabs

Jeremy Harbinson

unread,
May 22, 2001, 11:33:50 AM5/22/01
to
I really don't wish for an instant to encourage the anti-ecs drivel that pollutes
this newsgroup, but, just out of interest, are there not some components of OS/2
that were, or are, the property of MS, and thus subject to licensing agrreements
between IBM and Billy-Boy - this has often been raised in connection with the
problems relating to IBM making the OS/2 source code public (though that, of
course, does not mean it is true). Before you remind me, I can think of lots of
other, good, reasons why IBM should not wish to give OS/2 away.
alla bess,
Jeremy

David Frank

unread,
May 22, 2001, 11:59:00 AM5/22/01
to
Brad, according to you, the answer to my question is YES
(below snipped from a Google search June/99 message of yours)

>Didn't IBM have to pay MS royalties for Windows 3.x code used in OS/2?

They still do, which was why at one point IBM pulled the Windows code
out
of OS/2 for the "OS/2 for Windows" and WARP Redspine distributions,
decreasing
the cost (here in Canada, I saw OS/2 WARP v3 for as low as $35 on CD when it
was still the current version). Of course, with the release of Windows 95,
the usage base of those who already had Windows 3.1 severely decreased,
prompting IBM to release only one version of OS/2 WARP v4 with Win-OS2 built
in again.

Brad BARCLAY


"Brad BARCLAY" <bbar...@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:3B0A8230...@ca.ibm.com...

Bob St.John

unread,
May 22, 2001, 12:42:01 PM5/22/01
to

"David D. Huff Jr." wrote:

> Bob St. John speaks for both M$ and IBM unless ask him to qualify his
> statements.
>
> Not that I would want to sit on the same side of Hell with Bob St. John,
> but as memory serves me.

I don't believe your memory is doing you justice. Feel free to post the source
which could substantiate your recollections. I believe your neurons are misfiring.

Herbert Rosenau

unread,
May 22, 2001, 2:26:12 PM5/22/01
to
On Tue, 22 May 2001 14:37:19, "David D. Huff Jr."
<David...@computer-critters.com> wrote:

>>
> Bob St. John speaks for both M$ and IBM unless ask him to qualify his
> statements.

.. tells a M$ slave who has never seen an OS/2 from near than 1000
miles.

--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert


Member 53 of Team OS/2 Germany
FIDONET : 2:2476/493 LinuxNet : 44:4968/65 OS2Net: 81:497/830
MxBBSNet: 256:4960/345 WiPostNet: 777:4918/9090
Mailbox : 49-7273-93072 analog + ISDN

Visit my Homepage: look at: http://www.was-ist-fido.de
http://www.dv-rosenau.de/ home of SQED/32: http://www.sqed.de

OS/2 is the more effective way to utilize your computer.

Herbert Rosenau

unread,
May 22, 2001, 2:26:17 PM5/22/01
to
On Tue, 22 May 2001 14:27:34, "David Frank" <dave_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Not necessary to ask IBM or MS, when its easy to see why IBM cant
> arbitrarily release source
> since someone once reported a few years back that a majority of modules have
> a
> Microsoft copyright notice embedded..

You means this:

MS Run-Time Library - Copyright (c) 1990, Microsoft

What is wrong to use a M$ Linbrary for a M$ program?
What is wrong to use a 16 Bit library for a 16 bit program?

Thats only I can find on my system drive that contains the string
'microsost' if I do a case insensitive search for.

Do you really thing anything that usese the M$ library is copyrighted
by M$?

Then nobody should be able to write a program on any M$ OS - and
nobody would be get ownership on its own code.

Marty

unread,
May 22, 2001, 6:16:50 PM5/22/01
to

Bozo:

Bob is an ex-IBMer who is now the right arm of Serenity, yet you're
telling him how much his company is contributing to MS with each
purchase of their software? The only credentials in question are your
own.

David D. Huff Jr.

unread,
May 22, 2001, 7:42:12 PM5/22/01
to
Bob St.John wrote:

Ok, if that's the way you feel about it. I will try never to agree with
you again. Ok, feel better now?

Also I mis-quoted myself I meant to say "I wouldn't want to get caught
burning on the same side of Hell as Bob St. John".

Because at least I won't be responsable for feeding lies to 726 people.
Dang you're in luck that is almost as many that drank the cool-aid for
Jimmie Jones. Remember, I said you were using cult tactics, I meant it!

tho...@antispam.ham

unread,
May 22, 2001, 7:44:36 PM5/22/01
to
David Frank writes [to Bob St. John, though he quoted no text to attribute]:

> How about a reference backing your statement that IBM no longer pays MS fees
> for each Warp4 they sell?

How about a reference backing your statement that IBM does pay MS fees
for each Warp 4 they sell?

David T. Johnson

unread,
May 22, 2001, 5:25:21 PM5/22/01
to

"Bob St.John" wrote:
>
> Uh .. no. The royalties on WinOS2 ran out years ago. In fact, if IBM wanted
> to, they could market Win3.1 themselves with no revenue to MS .. and considered
> doing that in 1997.

I think this is correct but do you have any documentation other than a
"somebody told me that" story for this?

Bob St.John

unread,
May 22, 2001, 9:21:28 PM5/22/01
to

"David D. Huff Jr." wrote:

> Ok, if that's the way you feel about it. I will try never to agree with
> you again. Ok, feel better now?

Considering your veracity ... yes.

> Also I mis-quoted myself

I'll take this to mean that you acknowledge that I was not the source for the comments
you posted.

You get so many things so very wrong ... that the only thing which rings true is your
comment that you are not trying to contribute anything. Just playing games for your
entertainment.

That's fine ... but leave me out of it.

joseph

unread,
May 22, 2001, 10:23:34 PM5/22/01
to
Brad BARCLAY wrote:

> David Frank wrote:
> >
> > IBM got rights to WIN-OS2 source at time of divorce, albeit with per copy
> > royalty fees..
> > Not owning much of the OS/2 source is reason IBM currently gives to those
> > who demand they
> > release it to open developers..
>
> There is a difference between having to pay for access to source, and
> having the necessary IP rights to release that source to the public.
>
> I don't know anything about IBM's deal with Microsoft in terms of Win
> 3.1 source -- however, it's completely conceivable that IBM has
> royalty-free rights to the Win3.1 source, but that MS retains
> intellectual property rights to the code -- which means that IBM could
> use the source for free, but can't release it to the public.

IBM had rights to modify the code and they also recompiled Win3.1 with WATCOM C
resulting in a faster implementation of Win3.1 in OS/2 than MS's version. This
is documented in Byte Mag's review of WARP 3.0. IBM did have to pay a small
royality to MS for shipping Win3.1 in OS/2. I'm sure MS paid IBM royalities for
MS Lan Manger which was OS/2 and sold well after MS shipped the now defunct NT
product.

Mr. Frank's comments about IBM not owning much of the OS/2 source is a troll.
He's also incorrect to say IBM got rights to Win-OS2 at the time of "divorce".
IBM HAD rights to the windows code but they haven't the right to give it away.
There's not much original in his trolling and the ones who are bitching about
MS's new XP license are MS customers.

joseph

unread,
May 22, 2001, 10:27:17 PM5/22/01
to

David Frank wrote:

> Not necessary to ask IBM or MS, when its easy to see why IBM cant
> arbitrarily release source
> since someone once reported a few years back that a majority of modules have
> a
> Microsoft copyright notice embedded..

It's amazing to see the number of 3rd party copyrights that pop up when you poke
around Windows DLLs. Doing Y2K checking required tools which identifed DLL
versions and boy oh boy MS WIndow sure is built with a lot of non-invented-here
technology. Get this, the TCP/IP networking is based on open source BSD!

MS could NOT open source windows if their life depended on it.

David Frank

unread,
May 23, 2001, 6:02:36 AM5/23/01
to

<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:ERCO6.4112$WI.17...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...

I did give a reference, (see my snip of Brad Barclay's 1999 statement) in a
earlier to your post,
I assume his memory of events is not considered by you a "reference" ?

Since Bob St. John apparently cant backup his statement that you Warp'ees no
longer have to pay
MS royalties for Warp4/ECS, why dont you do it for him by giving a
reference?


tho...@antispam.ham

unread,
May 23, 2001, 10:08:53 AM5/23/01
to
David Frank writes:

>> David Frank writes [to Bob St. John, though he quoted no text to
>> attribute]:

>>> How about a reference backing your statement that IBM no longer pays MS
>>> fees for each Warp4 they sell?

>> How about a reference backing your statement that IBM does pay MS fees
>> for each Warp 4 they sell?

> I did give a reference, (see my snip of Brad Barclay's 1999 statement) in a
> earlier to your post,

What good is a 1999 statement in 2001?

> I assume his memory of events is not considered by you a "reference" ?

I do not consider a statement from 1999 as evidence for a claim made
using the present tense: "does pay".

> Since Bob St. John apparently cant backup his statement that you Warp'ees
> no longer have to pay MS royalties for Warp4/ECS, why dont you do it for
> him by giving a reference?

One thing at a time. I'm waiting for your reference.

David Frank

unread,
May 23, 2001, 10:24:21 AM5/23/01
to

<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:VvPO6.5233$WI.18...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...

www.google.com -> advanced newsgroup search -> keywords -> ibm microsoft
os/2 royalties

gets DOZENS of posts reporting IBM paying (and being forced to pay by MS)
royalties for Win3.1 in OS/2
the only ref. I see to the contrary is originated by OS2GUY
Is his message going to be your and Bob St John's reference that IBM has
ceased paying royalties?
If so, I think thats a blast, ha ha..

Brad BARCLAY

unread,
May 23, 2001, 10:55:12 AM5/23/01
to
David Frank wrote:
>
> Brad, according to you, the answer to my question is YES
> (below snipped from a Google search June/99 message of yours)
>
> >Didn't IBM have to pay MS royalties for Windows 3.x code used in OS/2?
>
> They still do, which was why at one point IBM pulled the Windows code
> out
> of OS/2 for the "OS/2 for Windows" and WARP Redspine distributions,
> decreasing
> the cost (here in Canada, I saw OS/2 WARP v3 for as low as $35 on CD when it
> was still the current version).

That was nearly two years ago. Things can change in two years worth of
time. And as I've mentioned here before, I have never read the
agreement, so I'm not an authority on it. I can only go by what I've
heard secondhand.

The point of my post yesterday is that a company like IBM can have
royalty-free rights to use something like Win-OS2, but that doesn't
necessarily remove Microsofts Intellectual Property rights to the work,
preventing IBM from releasing it as Open Source (which in itself was in
response to someone's incorrect use in logic in trying to equate the
fact that IBM hasn't/won't release OS/2's source as Open Source to mean
that IBM must be paying MS royalties).

Brad BARCLAY

unread,
May 23, 2001, 11:08:03 AM5/23/01
to
Jeremy Harbinson wrote:
>
> I really don't wish for an instant to encourage the anti-ecs drivel that pollutes
> this newsgroup, but, just out of interest, are there not some components of OS/2
> that were, or are, the property of MS, and thus subject to licensing agrreements
> between IBM and Billy-Boy - this has often been raised in connection with the
> problems relating to IBM making the OS/2 source code public (though that, of
> course, does not mean it is true).

Alot of people here don't understand intellectual property rights -- so
here's a quick crash course:

Say you develop WhizBangSoftware v1.0. You send me the source, free of
charge. Do I now automatically have the right to give that source to
someone else? Under the IP laws of all major industrialized nations, I
do not.

This is no different than the IBM/MS deal (which nobody here I know of
-- including myself -- has been privvy to). IBM can have royalty-free
access to MS's source if MS so wishes to grant it, but IBM can't
redistribute that source without MS's permission -- regardless of wether
or not they continue to pay royalties or other source-access fees (which
brings up another point -- just because IBM doesn't pay in per-copy-sold
royalties, how do you or anyone else here know that they don't pay in
another way, like a lump-sum, or in trade?).

You can't equate "they can't release the source" to mean that "they
must be paying royalties". There is no direct connection between the
two things. Regardless of what payment mechanism is in place (even if
there is no payment mechanism), IBM can only release the source to
Microsoft's intellectual property if they get a license from Microsoft
agreeing to do so.

AFAIK, such a license has not been sought, and is currently not
desired. However, hypothetically if it were something IBM ever wanted
to do in the future, they would need to negotiate an agreement with
Microsoft, Adobe, Intel, and a number of other campanies that have
intellectual property in OS/2 in order to do so. Again, this is
completely seperate from wether or not IBM pays royalties, or any other
fees to these companies to distribute binaries of their code.

I hope this helps clear things up a bit!

David Frank

unread,
May 23, 2001, 11:26:36 AM5/23/01
to

"Brad BARCLAY" <bbar...@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:3B0BCF50...@ca.ibm.com...

>
> That was nearly two years ago. Things can change in two years worth of
> time. And as I've mentioned here before, I have never read the
> agreement, so I'm not an authority on it. I can only go by what I've
> heard secondhand.
>

I assume the agreement is locked in Gerstner's safe so NO-ONE has access to
firsthand information...
Your secondhand 2001 info is better than the 99th-hand which is what this
newsgroup traffics in,
so how about asking someone who knows...

Dont you agree if IBM had indeed succeeded in getting the Microsoft $25
monkey off
of Warp's back the info would be WIDELY disseminated by now?


bob...@home.com

unread,
May 23, 2001, 11:32:09 AM5/23/01
to
On 05/23/2001 at 10:02 AM,
"David Frank" <dave_...@hotmail.com> said:

> Since Bob St. John apparently cant backup his statement that you
> Warp'ees no longer have to pay
> MS royalties for Warp4/ECS, why dont you do it for him by giving a
> reference?

Tell your boss, Bill Gates, to stick his FUD where the sun don't shine.
Bob St. John or any other OS/2 user for that matter doesn't have to prove
himself to the OS/2 community. We know what he says is accurate.

You on the other hand are a paid Lemming using MicroSoft software. That in
itself is prima facie proof that you are a stupid idiot too ignorant
and/or retarded to think for himself. Your opinion has no more validity in
this newsgroup than that of Jeffrey Dalmer's claims of innocence.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Germer from Beverly, NJ - E-mail: bob...@home.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4, WSeB and eCS on our network
MR/2 Ice 2.28a Registration Number 67
OS/2: Windows done RIGHT!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bob...@home.com

unread,
May 23, 2001, 11:33:07 AM5/23/01
to
On 05/23/2001 at 02:08 PM,
tho...@AntiSpam.ham said to David, the Paid Flack Lemming, Frank:


> One thing at a time. I'm waiting for your reference.

He's too mentally challenged to understand the meaning of reference.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Germer from Beverly, NJ - E-mail: bob...@home.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4, WSeB and eCS on our network
MR/2 Ice 2.28a Registration Number 67

OS/2: Windows with bullet-proof glass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bob...@home.com

unread,
May 23, 2001, 11:36:57 AM5/23/01
to
On 05/23/2001 at 02:24 PM,
"David Frank" <dave_...@hotmail.com> said:


> www.google.com -> advanced newsgroup search -> keywords -> ibm
> microsoft os/2 royalties

> gets DOZENS of posts reporting IBM paying (and being forced to pay by
> MS) royalties for Win3.1 in OS/2
> the only ref. I see to the contrary is originated by OS2GUY Is his
> message going to be your and Bob St John's reference that IBM has ceased
> paying royalties?
> If so, I think thats a blast, ha ha..

Your absolute mental disability is showing. When you can write complete
sentences properly punctuated, then MAYBE you MIGHT have something to
contribute to humanity. Even then, your use of fifth rate, buggy, full of
security holes software on your computer is proof you have nothing of
value to offer in this newsgroup where you are an unwelcome interloper.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Germer from Beverly, NJ - E-mail: bob...@home.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4, WSeB and eCS on our network
MR/2 Ice 2.28a Registration Number 67

OS/2: Your brain. Windows: Your brain on drugs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Esther Schindler

unread,
May 23, 2001, 1:10:27 PM5/23/01
to
On Wed, 23 May 2001 15:26:36, "David Frank" <dave_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

| Dont you agree if IBM had indeed succeeded in getting the Microsoft $25
| monkey off
| of Warp's back the info would be WIDELY disseminated by now?

Nope.

Stephen Howe

unread,
May 23, 2001, 1:48:06 PM5/23/01
to
David Frank <dave_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iTsO6.288363$o9.44...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...

> Just a reminder for all you anti-MS types here planning on giving Serenity
> Systems $$$
> for a fix-packed Warp4 (aka ECS) CD.
>
> IBM/Serenity is obligated to pay to MS a license fee (approx. $25) for
the
> only practical feature they use in Warp
> (WIN-OS2) which runs Warp'ees obsolete 16-bit windows 3.x crap apps.

I think you are wrong on the fact that IBM pays Microsoft for that specific
feature. See

http://www.byte.com/art/9401/sec8/art11.htm

where it says that originally for OS/2 2.0, IBM paid Microsoft approx $20.00
but when OS/2 for Windows came out, the royalties to Microsoft stopped. The
phrase:

>>>>>>
The business impact of OS/2 for Windows is clear: Because it incorporates no
Microsoft Windows code, IBM pays no royalty to Microsoft. As a result, the
list price of the package is less than half that of conventional OS/2.
>>>>>>

This is old information.

But it may be that IBM still pays Microsoft royalties, but for other parts
of OS/2. For example

Warp 5 client:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,s2070401,00.html

where it says

>>
However a true open source release of OS/2 -- recently advocated by Ralph
Nader's Consumer Technology Project -- was rendered impossible because of
royalty issues. "Microsoft still makes a lot of money from OS/2, large parts
of OS/2 networking and Presentation Manager means Microsoft can collect
royalties. IBM used to make some bad deals", said the source.
>>

Also the recent anti-trust case against Microsoft was revealing. See here

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/transcripts/jun99/06-09-am.asp
for relevant court transcripts and also here

http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,1014850,00.html
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,11165,00.asp
for comments on it.

To date, I don't see any information published by IBM or Microsoft which
explains what their current position is on royalties. I assume that the
terms are confidential.

( Note: Nothing can be inferred by the above quotes as to whether I am pro
or anti a particular company or their OSs. I do have an interest in finding
out exactly how history has occured with any factual evidence available that
backs up the said history. Just setting the record straight :-) )

Stephen Howe


Brad BARCLAY

unread,
May 23, 2001, 1:37:48 PM5/23/01
to
David Frank wrote:
> Dont you agree if IBM had indeed succeeded in getting the Microsoft $25
> monkey off
> of Warp's back the info would be WIDELY disseminated by now?

No, I don't agree :). Most respectable computer companies don't go
around flaunting their legal agreements in this way. The people who
have access to this information have no reason to come in here and brag
about its contents. As far as you and I know, there could be a
confidentiality clause in the agreement that prevents both parties from
disclosing its contents.

Stephen Howe

unread,
May 23, 2001, 3:30:55 PM5/23/01
to

David T. Johnson <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote in message
news:3B0AD941...@isomedia.com...

See what I posted in another part of the thread

Stephen Howe


Bob St.John

unread,
May 23, 2001, 6:04:02 PM5/23/01
to
>

This royalty thing is taking on a life of its own ... and getting muddled in the
process. David Frank made his point that SS/IBM pays and MS royalty of $25 for
each copy of eCS because of the WinOS2 .. which he called the only useful
feature of OS/2.

Steven tried to clear this up with a bunch of other stuff about other royalties.
That didn't really help. The MS - IBM agreement allowed the Win3.1 royalties to
expire because neither company felt the would have much value as the Win32 OSs
came out. That's all.

IBM still pays royalties for HPFS386 .. which is why that product is an option
for WSeb and not in the base product. Sweeping statement about these agreements
have to be incorrect because there are multiple agreements with differing
products, terms, and conditions.

eCS pays no MS royalties .. unless we go the route of offering HPFS386 as an
optional feature. This is not to say there is not MS code in there .. there is
MS code in OS/2. And not just IBM and MS. There is code from other companies and
individuals. Some of which no longer exist .. which is one of the show stoppers
about letting OS/2 become open sourced. Even if the MS - IBM stuff were resolved
.. and both companies endorse open source of OS/2 .. the lawyers would still
stop it until the code of all parties was addressed.

What I really don't understand is .. so what? Who really cares? I'm glad I don't
have to pay those royalties because that would be an expense I would have to
pass along. Now ... I don't.

tho...@antispam.ham

unread,
May 23, 2001, 6:47:05 PM5/23/01
to
David Frank writes:

>>>> David Frank writes [to Bob St. John, though he quoted no text to
>>>> attribute]:

>>>>> How about a reference backing your statement that IBM no longer pays
>>>>> MS fees for each Warp4 they sell?

>>>> How about a reference backing your statement that IBM does pay MS fees
>>>> for each Warp 4 they sell?

>>> I did give a reference, (see my snip of Brad Barclay's 1999 statement)
>>> in a earlier to your post,

>> What good is a 1999 statement in 2001?

Note: no response.

>>> I assume his memory of events is not considered by you a "reference" ?

>> I do not consider a statement from 1999 as evidence for a claim made
>> using the present tense: "does pay".

Note: no response.

>>> Since Bob St. John apparently cant backup his statement that you
>>> Warp'ees no longer have to pay MS royalties for Warp4/ECS, why dont
>>> you do it for him by giving a reference?

>> One thing at a time. I'm waiting for your reference.

> www.google.com -> advanced newsgroup search -> keywords -> ibm microsoft
> os/2 royalties
>
> gets DOZENS of posts reporting IBM paying (and being forced to pay by MS)
> royalties for Win3.1 in OS/2

Oh gosh, because you can find other people like you making unsubstantiated
claims, it must therefore be substantiated, right?

> the only ref. I see to the contrary is originated by OS2GUY

DF] Since Bob St. John apparently cant backup his statement that you
DF] Warp'ees no longer have to pay MS royalties for Warp4/ECS,

You just contradicted yourself.

> Is his message going to be your and Bob St John's reference that IBM has
> ceased paying royalties?

It is safe to say that Bob St. John won't be relying on OS2GUY as a
reference.

As for me, I don't need a reference, because I haven't made any such
claim. I'm simply asking you for your evidence to support your claim.

> If so, I think thats a blast, ha ha..

What you think is irrelevant.

tho...@antispam.ham

unread,
May 23, 2001, 6:52:28 PM5/23/01
to
Stephen Howe writes:

> David Frank wrote:

>> Just a reminder for all you anti-MS types here planning on giving Serenity
>> Systems $$$ for a fix-packed Warp4 (aka ECS) CD.
>>
>> IBM/Serenity is obligated to pay to MS a license fee (approx. $25) for
>> the only practical feature they use in Warp
>> (WIN-OS2) which runs Warp'ees obsolete 16-bit windows 3.x crap apps.

> I think you are wrong on the fact that IBM pays Microsoft for that specific
> feature. See
>
> http://www.byte.com/art/9401/sec8/art11.htm
>
> where it says that originally for OS/2 2.0, IBM paid Microsoft approx $20.00
> but when OS/2 for Windows came out, the royalties to Microsoft stopped. The
> phrase:
>
> >>>>>>
> The business impact of OS/2 for Windows is clear: Because it incorporates no
> Microsoft Windows code, IBM pays no royalty to Microsoft. As a result, the
> list price of the package is less than half that of conventional OS/2.
> >>>>>>
>
> This is old information.

And not particularly relevant. That applies to Warp 3, which came in
flavors with and without Windows. The Windows-less version didn't
have Microsoft code, so no royalties were necessary for that, but
Warp 4, and presumably eCS as well, all come with WINOS2. The question
is whether royalties apply to eCS.

Marty

unread,
May 23, 2001, 8:46:32 PM5/23/01
to
David Frank wrote:
>
> www.google.com -> advanced newsgroup search -> keywords -> ibm microsoft
> os/2 royalties
>
> gets DOZENS of posts reporting IBM paying (and being forced to pay by MS)
> royalties for Win3.1 in OS/2

If enough people banded together, we could flood the newsgroups with
messages stating that you've had sexual relations with a donkey. I hope
that such a demonstration is not necessary to show you the fallacy
behind your argument.

Marty

unread,
May 23, 2001, 8:52:48 PM5/23/01
to
"Bob St.John" wrote:
>
> >
>
> This royalty thing is taking on a life of its own ... and getting muddled in the
> process. David Frank made his point that SS/IBM pays and MS royalty of $25 for
> each copy of eCS because of the WinOS2 .. which he called the only useful
> feature of OS/2.

Just a gentle reminder and some renewed perspective to those making
salient, reasoned arguments aimed at David Frank:

David Frank is the same person who claimed that OS/2 uses "Real Mode"
device drivers and pointed to Config.Sys and Autoexec.Bat as more "real
mode" aspects of OS/2. This person's ignorance of OS/2 is so profound
that I cannot possibly believe he has even run it, let alone developed
for it as he had claimed. He seems to equate OS/2 with Win9x running on
top of a DOS kernel.

In short, though salient, reasoned arguments are interesting, they are
not necessary to shut down this ignorant troll.

Lee Riemenschneider

unread,
May 24, 2001, 12:19:11 AM5/24/01
to
On Wed, 23 May 2001 17:48:06, "Stephen Howe"
<SPAMstephe...@tnsofres.com> wrote:
>
> where it says that originally for OS/2 2.0, IBM paid Microsoft approx $20.00
> but when OS/2 for Windows came out, the royalties to Microsoft stopped. The
> phrase:
>
Hate to point this out :-), but OS/2 for Windows did not include
Win-OS2, so this quote was rather irrelevant.
--
Lee W. Riemenschneider
Die Hard Purdue Fan!
OS/2 User and Supporter
http://wcic.cioe.com/~lwriemen

Herbert Rosenau

unread,
May 24, 2001, 12:43:36 PM5/24/01
to
On Thu, 24 May 2001 00:52:48, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:

> In short, though salient, reasoned arguments are interesting, they are
> not necessary to shut down this ignorant troll.

You can find a very interesting article in the german c't. That
describes how to unbundle your ME from your hardware.

The most important things: you have to modify config.sys and
autoexec.bat.

How often has M$ renamed theyr DOS?

DOS 7.0 aka Windows 95 aka Windows 98 aka Windows ME aka Windows 2000
aka....

Everey time a new windows occures - it is even config.sys,
autoexec.bat and DOS with a graphical shell with partial 32 Bit
extensions - but even incompatible to most of the DOS applications you
own.

OS/2 is truly 32 Bit (even if something internal may be 16 bit).
OS/2 is more compatible to DOS than DOS - see M$.
OS/2 is more compatible to Windows than Windows (even 32 Bit Windows)

Windows NT 3.x is a stolen OS/2. The error messages it tells you -
after it is booted and up and running are OS/2 ones - right not all
but many.

--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert


Member 53 of Team OS/2 Germany
FIDONET : 2:2476/493 Maillbox : 49-7273-93072 analog + ISDN
Homepage: http://www.dv-rosenau.de/ home of SQED/32:
http://www.sqed.de

OS/2 is the more effective way to utilize your computer.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages