When MS lost the Apple look and feel lawsult, Gates vowed to
change his
then relaxed posture of IP to one that will protect
everything they do.
Those of us who were arround at the time remember that Apple was
successful in crushing GEM using its patent claims. GEM was a
much better O/S than the MacOS in its day.
Once
these patents
began to be issued around 1998/99 and since then, this is
when we began to
see the silly enforcements lawsuits. EOLAS was one of them.
Actually it was not, I was dealling with Doyle back when I was in
CERN which I left in 1995 so the provisional patents could not
have been involved.
The Eolas patent certainly did change Microsoft's view on software
patents, after being taken for $0.5 billion for a spurious claim
they seem to have decided to not allow themselves to be got again.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/theymadeamerica/whomade/kildall_hi.html
What Kildall did not tell you is that Gates sent IBM to him
first and it was
Kildall that refused IBM's initial offer for his CP/M based
system demanding
an excessive royalty unacceptable by then standard IBM contractual and
business deals.
Gates got started in the compiler business. He was not in the
OS business.
As the story goes, Gates was writing the compiler and other
products for
Apple when IBM went to Gates to write the Apple products for their new
secret IBM PC project. IBM mentioned they also needed a OS
so Gates refered
IBM to Kildall.
Actually Microsoft BASIC was an interpreter, but this is what really
happened. At the time the BASIC was the key component for a micro.
Most Micros did not have disks, let alone DOS, but most ran Microsoft
BASIC or a clone.
Now this is where in the annals of PC history, even the worst
Gates haters,
gives him credit for one of the most brilliant business
decisions and deals
of all times. It was such a deal that in hind-sight IBM admitted they
regretted accepting this first and only, never again to
happen business
deals as it was the main reason for the inevitable lost of
IBM PC dominance
in the market place.
It was not as important as people claim. If the IBM O/S had not been
licensable the clone makers would have been forced to choose a
different platform. Chuck Peddle already had a start up that was
building the ACT Sirius. Osborne was a player, Commodore and Apple
were both looking to make the jump to 16 bits.
Background #2: In the late 70s, early 80s, the 'personal
System
applications and solutions were mini and main frame based,
not PC based. So
the IBM PC project was more done for marketing reasons, not
because they saw
it as a future strategic direction.
The corporate mindset was not uninimous. In those days the central
MIS dept was effectively able to control all aspects of many companies
work.
The MIS dept usually attempted to stamp out micros as a threat to
their powerbase while middle managers sneaked in micros under a
range of descriptions.
The IBM PC was important because it was the one the MIS dept was
unable to argue against.
I have heard all the Unix vs Windows arguments before, they were
all made in the context of Cobol vs micros. People do not like
it when they feel that their expertise may be rendered obsolete.
The arrogant IBM feelling they had the had the upper hand of
this deal and
also thinking this was just passe with no reason importance
in the real
corporate world, accepted the deal. Full ownership of the
PC, IBM DOS.
Corporate america will buy IBM. Period. Whats to lose?
It was a brilliant move that IBM never recovered from. The
clone came and
the rest his history.
The critical mistake was trying to close the platform with the
PS/2. That is when everything started to go pear shaped and the
clone makers decided to take their destiny into their own hands.