From: shurr@cbnews.cb.att.com (larry.a.shurr)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:17:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Sep29.181727.21830
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, OH

[The original post referred to an announced delay in Windows NT shipping]

>   >Good idea... not only does that give developers more time, but IBM won't
>   >have the rights to any code released after 1992...  not suprising.

>   i don't think this is quite the case anymore.  i forgot the details 
>   exactly, but i remember after the big news item broke that ibm would 

>I recall that IBM and MS concluded some negotiations on this point a few
>months ago.  The upshot was that MS and IBM agreed on a price-per-copy for the
>Windows component of OS/2, IBM gave up any rights to NT, kept rights to
>Windows to sometime in 93, retained the right to clone or support the Win32 API
>(although they have to write the code themselves), and MS agreed to buy about
>$20 million worth of IBM patent license rights.

I can't confirm it, but ever since the original announcement that MicroSoft
would not renew cross-licensing agreement between themselves and IBM, there-
by cutting off IBM's access to Windows source code, I've expected a settle-
ment of some kind that would be rather like this.

IBM owns enough patents to make miserable the lives of anyone who defies 
them if they so choose.  If you, too, own patents on intellectual property
IBM uses, you and they have a cross-license agreement.  It is said,
however, that if you don't own sufficient intellectual property to enter
into one of these cross-license agreements, IBM will come around and offer
you a deal for the right to use their patents.  If you don't want to deal,
IBM will send you a "sample" of patents you will be sued for the infringe-
ment of if you don't take the deal.  The costs of the lawsuites, damage
awards, and piecemeal licensing will quickly persuede you of the wisdom
of accepting the deal.

I cannot say of my own knowledge that IBM acts like some kind of protection
racket in enforcing its patents, nor do I argue that IBM should be denied 
the right protect its intellectual property, though I think we have a right
to be wary of the anti-competitive power it has at it's disposal.  What is
happening in reality may be far less sinister, but I believe that if 
MicroSoft thought that they had the power to cut IBM completely off from 
access to Windows, they were likely to find that a licensing battle with 
IBM would not likely devolve to their benefit.  In fact, it's even 
possible that MicroSoft merely wished to renegotiate their license 
agreement with IBM and that the announcement was just so much posturing.

They may have simply wanted to create some FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and
Doubt) in the market for purposes of leveraging the negotiations.  You and
I, meanwhile, are stuck with wondering what the hell's going on.  Meanwhile,
at 250 MB on two disk drives, I don't have enough space to be loading all
these different systems in order to decide which ones I'm going to support.

I have enough problems with acquiring the funds to get a CDROM for
multimedia + ability to handle future distributions.  The way things are
going, distributions will expand to 60, 80, 100 and beyond floppy disks.
They're going to stop doing that and say here it is on CDROM, take it or
leave it -- they'll have to.

Enough speculating for now,
Larry
-- 
Larry A. Shurr (las@cbnmva.att.com or att!cbnmva!las) speaking only for myself.
EOR (end-of-ramble)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy