spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed)

2004-09-24 09:17:45

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap
pointed)


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.

I thought this was a look/feel, copyright suit? Not patent?  Nonetheless,
Apple was always more aggressive in this area.

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.

I did not mean imply EOLAS patent application was provisional to start.  But
the timing is all correct :-)   Between 1992-1996, this is where growth
market for intelligent GUI systems. I know, I presented one of them called
Gold Xpress at the one of the last Fidonet tradeshows if I recall 93/94.  In
19941996,  Mustang was developing Wildcat! Internet Net Server (WINSERVER)
using similar on-demand component download/activiation concepts.  Nothing
new.  Sure, maybe new for the HTML world, but these natural evoluting
client/server telecommunication networking concepts was par for the course
WAY before the internet was mainframe.   Remember, the PC really gots its
start as a fancy terminal that began to give "graphics" capabilities even if
you were using it as connection device to a corporate mini or main-frame -
aka IBM PC SPF! <???>

In any case, prior to 1996,  you simply didn't these stupid patents - it was
harder to do.

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.

I wouldn't say they are innocent <g>

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.

And of course, we have OS/2 that IBM screwed up!  I was an original OS/2
beta tester during the merger. OS/2 university and all.  Charter?  Make it
work for the Westinghouse corporation.


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.

Sure,  but no so for engineering. We had a corporate mandate.  I was one of
five engineers chosen for a Westinghouse Electric "think tank" to evaluate
all technology potential, including the PC for engineering purposes,
especially but not exclusive too: Energy business, AI and Robotics business,
particularily as expert systems to collect the "knowledge" of our dieing
breed of black art engineers.  We touched based with early hyper-text
systems.  I had a card blance for everything; Lisp systems, hybrids, neural
networks, Sun machines, even GEM, etc, every language available, etc, etc.
I was also responsible for evaluate the legal aspects of the technology,
particular the potential take overs of startups in these growing early
markets.  For one my last projects,  I put together the worlds first PAD
ready complete bulletin board system (BBS) using Clark's PCBOARD system to
establish Westinghouse first electronic mail sytem that was outside X.400.
It was this early BBS especially that give me the fire to go on my own in
this new cyber-space market.  I left engineering pretty much at that point.
:-)

In short, MIS had no power over these efforts at high tech engineering
firms..  However, yes, once things were in place, they had a big say over
the "standardization" of the corporate computer systems.

The IBM PC was important because it was the one the MIS dept was
unable to argue against.

Of course, no one every got fire for buying IBM.  :-) But not even IBM could
furfill all needs, such as tempest ready PC machines for the top security
nuclear, advanced weopons, "Star Wars"  facilities, at Westinghouse :-)  IBM
was getting its leg in with the business side, concentrating on SNA.  For
engineering,  they began to rely on OS/2.  They provided us with early beta
copy of all their compilers for OS/2:  C, Pascal, Fortran, Cobol, Basic etc,
in an effort to push it into the engineering departments.  It was so raw, we
had to wait weeks to get the printed paper - not manuals <g>

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.

Actually, the only people I knew using Unix on a regular basis was the
network people. Thats it.  Oh we brought SUN work stations with its "DOS
board" in for a small group to begin single sourcing of Cray applications to
a new CRAY clone.   R&D used it, but for the most part - it was CRAY, VAXES
and VT100, Tektronixs, Silicon Graphics, CAD machines and PCs on the
engineering side, and IBM minis and mainframes, IBM terminals and PCs as
well for the business side of things.   Oh I forgot, we had some old
unix-like OSs for some embedded systems as well as process controllers for
Robotic Arms.  But Unix was rare for the most part in my 1980s Westinghouse
corporate experience.

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.

Probably, PS/2 had ESDI and other proprietary bus technology.   But in my
view, 3 things killed them:

1)  Corporate managers insisting that OS/2 work on the brain-dead 16 bit
machines  simply because IBM had successfully sold shits loads of them.  The
companies were not ready to revamp.

2) People like myself were asked to evaluate the engineering and project
development cost of the following:

  a) Stay with OS/2 and buy new hardware,
  b) Go with the new Windows 3.0 and keep the hardware,

No doubt, B was less costly, I could not issue fake reports especially
when....

3) Visual BASIC was introduced.

Component engineering was now main stream.  The economy was bad, lack of
work across  the board, was forcing companies to move engineers into new PC
position such was programmers. They were having a terrible time with OS/2
especially the new C/C++.  Productivity was extremely low with OS/2
products.

With VB introduced, this engineers including managers were creating
applications.  Staff was reduced. No longer needed expensive OS/2
consultants. $40 million products reduced to $10 million.

That is what killed IBM.  It was a common place across the board.  Need I
say more?  <g>

Sincerely,

Hector Santos, CTO
Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
305-431-2846 Cell
305-248-3204 Office