NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/11495

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11495 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3643
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!think.com!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-coco!nwnexus!Celestial.COM!ray
From: [e-mail] (Ray Jones)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 19:54:38 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 57

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (RICHARD HOFFBECK) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ray Jones) writes:
>> >> You have not been a victem of Microsoft'a predatory practices.  Just see
>> >> what happens if you come up with a clever inovation that might really cut
>> >> into thier profit.  I have worked for such a company.  We just talk to a few
>> >> companies about what we wanted to do and within 30 days got a letter from
>> >> the Microsoft legal department that said,
>> >> "Just try it, and we will sue you out of existance."
>> >> Our lawyer told us we were well with in our rights BUT we could not afford
>> >> the legal assult.  Two years later, Microsoft came out with the product.
>> >> Nice gut, that Gates.
>>
>> >Perhaps you could give us the particulars, like the product in question and
>> >why MS thought that they would have a basis for litigation. There seem to
>> >be numerous counter-examples like Stacker, various backup utilities, disk
>> >compressors, etc.
>>
>> Company was Microport Systems.  Product was the ability to run Xenix
>> binaries on our Unix system.  Microport was just starting out, had the only
>> Unix 286/386 product on the market (lots of Xenix and Xenix applications)
>> but with few Unix applications.  We could have a big jump ahead if we had access
>> to more applications without the apps vendors having to recompile.
>> Microsoft said the only way we could do this was because we had seen the
>> Xenix source code - not true.  The only difference in Unix binaries and
>> Xenix binaries was the header of the file.

>Are you sure it was the source code?  Most compiler products of the time
>had licenses that forbid disassembling the binary; in fact, if you did
>disassemble the binary produced by the Microsoft DOS F77 compiler, there
>was an embedded text comment to the effect that you weren't suppose to
>be looking at the binary.  If the XENIX license had a similar clause I
>would think that you'd be out of luck regardless of what the lawyers
>said.

Yes, I am sure, the letter make reference to source code.  I am not sure
about licenses forbidding disassembling the binary.  But I do know that it
is easy to see the header in any UNIX code.  The "file" command reads the
header and tell you a lot about the header.  You would not have
to disassemble the binary, just find where the header leaves off.
Here are a couple of examples
file /usr/local/bin/a2p
/usr/local/bin/a2p:    80386 separate executable not stripped
file /usr/bin/msg
/usr/bin/msg:    80386 separate executable
>>
>> FYI Microsoft had Xenix as a product prior to DOS.

>I stand corrected.

>--rick

--
INTERNET:  [e-mail]   Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!ray   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!ray   Mercer Island, WA 98040; [phone]
The probability of one or more spelling errors in this missive approaches