NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/programm/7391

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-07 | 6.0 KB

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.programmer:7391 comp.os.os2.advocacy:11843
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!lsa.umich.edu!spexet
From: [e-mail] (D. Robert Spexet II)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Why you should get everything in writing (long)
Date: 7 Jan 1993 21:28:53 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan, Mathematics Department, Ann Arbor
Lines: 111
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: explorer.math.lsa.umich.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Cain) writes:
>I joined the Developers Assistance Program and through that arm
>obtained a verbal assurance that there would be "no problem" obtaining
>said source code since there was nothing proprietary.  Based on this
>assurance and the license I had negotiated for using the interpreter I
>quit my day job to live off my savings and develop this product which I
>was going to call SimpleScript.

Not to question your judgement in this case, but do you think that it was
really a wise move to do what you did on the basis of a verbal promise,
with nothing backing it up in writing?

>Monthly I checked with my IBM rep to see how it was going with regard
>to obtaining the code and was assured that it was just taking time due
>to the "normal" red tape.  I succeeded in making the port work and
>isolated the functionality required to integrate into the driver by
>early August and began to press IBM for the promised source code.  To
>my amazement and consternation I was told that the original contact
>that had made the promise was retired and wrong.  In fact the source
>code was owned by Microsoft and could not be released to me by IBM.

While your situation is truly an unfortunate one, it only emphasizes the
fact that one should take care of the "important" miscellaneous details
of a project before committing such a vast amount of resources to it.  To
be specific, it might have been easier for you in the end to get a
*written* promise that the needed source code could and would be deli-
vered.  This basically helps to CYA in case something goes wrong.

>As a consequence I am out the $30k of savings I supported myself with
>and the $70k lost income from the period.  To add insult to injury they
>are now requiring the return of the PS/2 system loaned me to test the
>product on an IBM system.  I'm stonewalling.  I no longer have any
>interest in developing for OS/2 but would like their fuck up to cost
>*them* something.

Well, it sounds like you have had quite a few discussions with the IBM
representatives over this matter.  While I am not an advocate in any
way for the lawyers of this world, I will say this:  If the actions of
representatives of the IBM Corporation have caused injury to you, then
you may wish to consider a legal action to solve your problems.

As far as their machine goes, it's their machine and they can have it
back if they like.  To be blunt, it ain't your machine.

>I shelved the project at that point and decided to move my efforts to
>NT some time in the future since MS is making the equivalent source
>code available as a standard part of their driver development kit.  I
>advise the rest of you to do the same.  IBM still has way too much to
>learn about developer support.  Lots of splash but little content and
>some silly notion about making a profit on their developers tools.

While your emotions at this point are understandably negative, (hell, I'd
be p***ed off also if I lost a 100 grand,) you might wish to come to
the realization that your treatment by IBM is quite common in the busi-
ness, and especially the computer, world.  Microsoft is *no* different
from IBM in this regard.  Neither is Apple, Novell, DEC, Sun, or any
of the other players in the computer world.

The cold, hard fact of the matter is that verbal statements and promises
are made all the time.  Many of these statements are not kept.  It is not
necessarily the fault of "the system", or of the IBM management in this
regard.  You were made a promise by some person within the DAP that said
you can have some source code.  He (or perhaps she, but I'll assume that
it's a he.  Sorry if it sounds sexist) turned out to be wrong.  In short,
he made a mistake.

You then bet a large sum of money on the (verbal) promises of this person,
without getting any written agreement, and you got screwed when the IBM
legal people did their job.  In short, you did not take care of the nece-
ssary details before you made such a grand investment.

As far as your encouraging people to move to NT goes, I can certainly
see why you might think that way.  I must admit, however, that I know
quite a few people who have had the same problems in dealing with Micro-
soft as you have had with IBM.  And, these people have lost a hell of
a lot more money than you.  That's the way the computer business works.

IBM and OS/2 are not going to die.  There are lots of developers that
are working on OS/2 software, and more are coming every day.  While they
may have "way too much to learn about developer support", I think that
it can be safely said that they seem to know enough about it to be
getting new developers.

>Beware.

Yes.  Be sure to get everything in writing.

>Thanks IBM.  I knew I could count on you.

I hate to be sarcastic, but the way you are taking care of business, you
will be posting a similar message in comp.os.ms-windows.programmer and
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy a year or two from now.

>
>Bob
>
>--
>Bob Cain    [e-mail]   408-358-2007
>
>    'The meek shall inherit the earth--the rest of us will move on..'
>                                                    Sameer Parekh
>
>
>               PGP 1.0 or 2.0 public key available on request.


--
D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  [e-mail], [e-mail]
Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    [e-mail]
The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109    ATTMail:   !dspexet