"Doug Mentohl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
amicus_curious wrote:
Well, consider the facts of the Stac case ..
Microsoft wanted STAC to give away STACKER, and when they wouldn't comply
went ahead and included it in DOS 6.0 anyway renaming it DoubleSpace. When
called on it by Stac went to a third party VertiSoft and released
DriveSpace, a clone of STACKER :)
http://www.vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20041207004602/http://www.base.com/software-patents/articles/stac.html
"stac says they are interested in doing something and our proposal is a
good start" May 1992
http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/4000/PX04268.pdf
"Vertisoft will develop the Stacker conversion utility to our spec .. We
have a total exclusive to DoubleDisk", May 1992
http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/4000/PX04253_A.pdf
> They had very little money invested in that product, far less than
what they got from MS.
They were a company involved in data compression, before they got fucked
over by MS ..
Nothing new here. Microsoft tried for a deal with Stac and couldn't come to
terms, so they bought similar technology from DoubleStack and VertiSoft
which was eventually found to be infringing on the Stac patents. Stac was
also found to be violating the terms of the DOS license due to reverse
engineering. They eventually came to terms and Stac got close to $100M
bucks which was about 4 times their total revenues from Stacker in their
best year.
That may be getting fucked, but I am sure that Stac enjoyed it.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
