Talk:DRI
From Techrights
Feedback from reader for future consideration:
I was looking at the DR-DOS information, and noticed that there was information missing, which was posted to Groklaw back in 2004. Here is the text (with grammar fixed a bit) and a link to that post:
[edit] =
OK, here we go again. This was posted by me 4-5 months ago, pardon for the repeat.
Digital Research CP/M (Control Program for Microprocessors) was the standard operating system used on the Z80 and 8080 processors. When Intel came out with the 8086/8088 processors CP/M86 was developed.
Bill Gates mother was on a board with an IBM exec (can't remember his name) and suggested that IBM should buy some software from Microsoft. IBM at this time was developing what became the IBM PC, and looking for an operating system. Digital Research was on the short list as a supplier, but they checked out Microsoft, and Bill made a sales pitch based on lower cost.
At this point Microsoft did not have an operating system, however they knew that Seattle Computing had one called Quick & Dirty DOS. Microsoft bought QD-DOS, updated it and sold it to IBM as PC-DOS (but retained the rights to sell it to anyone else as MS-DOS).
The CEO of Digital Research, Gary Kildall became suspicious of Microsoft's ability to develop an OS so quickly and did some testing on a PC with DOS installed. He found that MS-DOS was not only a CP/M clone, it was actually based on CP/M code, a copyright violation (how Seattle Computing got access to the source code I don't know). Digital Research sued Microsoft, and won the case when in court they were able to show that a PC with a fresh install of MS-DOS would show a Digital Research copyright notice if a certain key combination was pressed. Microsoft was forced to settle. The outcome of the settlement was that:
1) Microsoft paid an undisclosed sum to Digital Research. 2) The court records were sealed (presumably at Microsoft's request) and a non-disclosure agreement was signed. 3) Digital Research was granted the right to produce their own version of DOS.
Because the court records were sealed and a non-disclosure agreement was signed the story is known to very few people. Since I was not a party to the suit, and have never been an employee of either company I can't prove any of the above, however if you search you will find this referenced in various places.
Note that it also explains why Microsoft never sued Digital Research over their "MS-DOS" clone.
[edit] =
I think that this was told to me by a programmer named Bill King about some time in the late 80s. I can't check, because Bill died when he crashed his Ultra-Light plane about 20 years ago. Whoever it was didn't mention the case being sealed, however the general lack of knowledge about the case indicates to me that this is probably what happened, assuming that what I was told was accurate.
The question is can this be proved? Back when I was told about this, I didn't know what I know now about courts. If this really happened, even if the records were sealed, there would still be a record in the courthouse of the case being filed, records of the court dates, and possibly even the transcripts (I don't believe a sealed agreement affects court documents).
The reason that I think this is important is that it could help prove a pattern, if lack of respect for copyright by the company, and it also could help prove that Microsoft Innovation is an oxymoron.
I'd prefer my name be kept off this, until and unless we end up with something solid.
