Legal Issues

Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
dos, libel

Companies:
microsoft



Saying The DOS Microsoft Originally Used Was A Rip-Off Isn't Libel

from the talk-about-sore-winners dept

Back in 2005, we wrote about the case of Tim Paterson, the creator of QDOS (which was eventually sold to Microsoft and became the basis of Microsoft DOS -- and, with it, the Microsoft empire). Paterson was pissed off at author Harold Evans for claiming in a book that Paterson had ripped off Gary Kildall's CP/M. It really isn't disputed that QDOS was modeled on CP/M -- or that Microsoft (and Paterson) eventually won out in the marketplace. So it's hard to see what the beef is here, and as Slashdot points out, it appears the judge agreed. The judge tossed out the suit saying that there didn't appear to be any libel in what was said. Most of the statements were opinions, so they can't be shown to be provably false. Also, they found no evidence of malicious intent, which would also be needed in this case. In the end, though, this certainly seems like the case of a sore winner. Paterson's software was the one that went on to greatness, whether or not it was a rip-off over Kildall's stuff.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
 

Reader Comments

(Flattened / Threaded)

    Aug 1st, 2007 @ 12:08am
  • greatness?

    by Anonymous Coward

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

    • Aug 1st, 2007 @ 5:44am
    • Re: greatness?

      by Nasty Old Geezer

      From Dictionary.com (a prtial list of meanings):

      1. unusually or comparatively large in size or dimensions: A great fire destroyed nearly half the city.
      2. large in number; numerous: Great hordes of tourists descend on Europe each summer.
      3. unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity, etc.: great pain.
      12. much in use or favor: “Humor” was a great word with the old physiologists.


      I think these meanings are all applicable to DOS and is Windows succors.

      (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

    Aug 1st, 2007 @ 4:25am
  • Saying The DOS Microsoft Originally Used Was A Rip

    Hello:

    I believe the judge who ruled in that case was wise because he was able to recognize a frivolous lawsuit and rightfully tossed it aside.
    Ikey Benney

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  • Aug 1st, 2007 @ 5:23am
  • Stating the obvious!

    by Krayol

    It was always known and reported (even back when CPM was still around) that DOS was based on it.

    No one disputed that "fact" 20+ years ago when there was plenty of cross pollination between CPM and QDOS and later DRDOS, etc.

    Thank goodness that folks can still (occasionally) state the obvious truth without fear of libel action!

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  • Aug 1st, 2007 @ 5:49am
  • by Overcast

    I agree it's frivolous. Since when is it ok to sue someone over an opinion?

    Although, I would call it an improvement upon CP/M - not really a 'rip-off'.

    It doesn't even matter, really. Glad to see it tossed out.

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  • Aug 1st, 2007 @ 6:27am
  • Ripoff, homage or bkwd compat

    by Tom

    DOS may have been based on CP/M, it certainly used various "calls" to provide some degree of compatibility for programs ported FROM CP/M. It was only a rip-off the way that Apple ripped off Xerox for its Mac OS and Windows ripped off Apple for Windows. "Ripping off someone is the most sincere form of flattery", to rip-off some great writer.

    The first few versions of DOS were certainly NOT an improvement on CP/M. DOS won in the marketplace for the same reason VHS beat Beta - nobody cared which was better, only "want did everybody else buy?".

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  • Aug 1st, 2007 @ 10:21am
  • Rip-off

    by Joe Smith

    The problem here is the uncertain meaning of rip-off. If Paterson did a clean room clone of CP/M (the way that Compaq did of the IBM BIOS) then some people would still describe that as a rip-off but there would be nothing legally wrong in what Paterson did. On the other hand if Paterson got an unauthorized copy of the CP/M source code and copied it then that too might be described as a rip-off and would pretty clearly be wrong in the legal sense.

    Personally I disagree with the Judge. The common use of the expression "rip-off" clearly connotes something which is illegal or otherwise improper.

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now.
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Plain Text HTML
Save me a cookie
  • Plain Text: A CRLF will be replaced by break <br> tag, all other allowable HTML is intact
  • HTML: No formatting of any kind is done without explicitly being written in
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <p> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Close
Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now.
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Plain Text HTML Save me a cookie

Search Techdirt
And now, a word from our Sponsors..



Subscribe to Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Related Stories
Close
E-mail It