gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: consider the facts of the Stac case..


From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: consider the facts of the Stac case..
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 18:55:28 -0500


"Doug Mentohl" <address@hidden> wrote in message news:address@hidden
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.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]