Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #101592 > unrolled thread

Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-01-13 18:30 +1100
    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code sjmsoft@gmail.com - 2016-01-13 06:21 -0800
      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-01-13 11:25 -0500
        Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-01-14 11:10 +1100
          Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 22:40 -0200
            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-01-14 12:02 +1100
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 18:24 -0700
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-13 21:39 -0500
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2016-01-13 21:59 -0500
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-14 07:41 -0500
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2016-01-14 14:43 +0100
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@VybeNetworks.com> - 2016-01-14 08:47 -0500
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2016-01-14 16:32 +0100
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@VybeNetworks.com> - 2016-01-14 10:47 -0500
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2016-01-14 17:52 +0100
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-01-15 16:08 +1300
                Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 15:56 +1100
                  Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-01-16 10:02 +1300
                Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 09:40 -0200
            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Robin Koch <robin.koch@t-online.de> - 2016-01-15 19:29 +0100
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 16:43 -0200
          Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-01-13 19:53 -0500
          Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 17:02 -0800
            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:29 +1100
            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 19:11 -0700
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 18:51 -0800
                Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 14:08 +1100
                  Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 19:29 -0800
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 22:18 -0700
                      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 07:30 -0800
                        Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 04:41 +1100
                          Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 10:40 -0800
                            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code <paul.hermeneutic@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 13:16 -0700
                        Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-01-15 09:04 +1100
                          Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 15:16 -0800
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-01-14 19:16 +1100
                      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 01:37 -0800
            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-01-14 00:45 -0500
              Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 07:52 -0800
                Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 15:52 -0700
                  Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 15:55 -0800
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2016-01-15 06:52 -0800
                      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-01-16 09:49 +1300
                        Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 14:34 -0800
                      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 13:45 -0800
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> - 2016-01-15 12:02 -0500
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 16:09 -0200
                      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-01-15 18:46 +0000
                        Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 16:55 -0200
                          Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-01-16 14:41 +0000
                            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 12:48 -0200
                            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code paul.hermeneutic@gmail.com - 2016-01-16 09:08 -0700
                            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> - 2016-01-16 13:00 -0500
                            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 12:26 -0700
                            Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 13:43 +1100
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> - 2016-01-15 13:49 -0500
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 16:53 -0200
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-15 20:58 +0000
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-01-15 14:09 -0800
                    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-01-16 20:51 -0800
      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 03:38 +1100
    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-01-14 10:38 +1300
      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 19:46 -0200
    Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-01-14 01:02 +0000
      Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:21 +1100
        Re: Stop writing Python 4 incompatible code BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-01-14 01:49 +0000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#101725

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 4:53:42 PM UTC-6, Ian wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Rick Johnson
> 
> [...]
> 
> > I wonder if he's considered the possibility that Google may
> > swoop in an purchase Dropbox at some time in the near
> > future, and he could find himself working for google once
> > again.
> 
> Google already has a cloud storage service.

Yeah, and it sucks donkey balls! 

But, when you have almost infinitely deep pockets, like
Google, you don't need to create *everything* yourself, no,
you simply wait for someone else to build it, then wait a
little longer for them to market it successfully, and when
it's juuuusssst starting to turn a profit, you swoop in,
purchase it, and then you drive that "money train" at full
speed until its wheels fall off!

And if the owners refuse to sell, no problem, you offer
their customers the same services at bargain basement
discounts -- then they'll have no choice but to sell, or
face bankruptcy. Yep, just another tactic of economic
warfare.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101762

On 1/14/2016 3:55 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> But, when you have almost infinitely deep pockets, like
> Google, you don't need to create *everything* yourself, no,
> you simply wait for someone else to build it, then wait a
> little longer for them to market it successfully, and when
> it's juuuusssst starting to turn a profit, you swoop in,
> purchase it, and then you drive that "money train" at full
> speed until its wheels fall off!
>
> And if the owners refuse to sell, no problem, you offer
> their customers the same services at bargain basement
> discounts -- then they'll have no choice but to sell, or
> face bankruptcy. Yep, just another tactic of economic
> warfare.

Hmm, sounds like they're stealing plays from Micro$oft.

Emile

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101779

> On 1/14/2016 3:55 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> 
>> And if the owners refuse to sell, no problem, you offer
>> their customers the same services at bargain basement
>> discounts

But... that would require you to develop your own
version, which is what you're trying to avoid!

-- 
Greg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101787

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 2:49:49 PM UTC-6, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> > On 1/14/2016 3:55 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> > 
> >> And if the owners refuse to sell, no problem, you offer
> >> their customers the same services at bargain basement
> >> discounts
> 
> But... that would require you to develop your own
> version, which is what you're trying to avoid!

No, google cloud services exist for a reason, and that
*REASON* is to use them as an economic weapon (if needed).
And if they don't end up needing to wield them as a weapon,
no big loss, they only spent a few dollars subsidizing some
worthless code monkeys anyway (call it, good PR if you
like). The real goal is to acquire a product like Dropbox,
that is, once it becomes *profitable*.

Google is primarily focusing on the self-driving car, which
is smart, because, self-driving cars are going to be the
"next big thing" -- even greater than the iPhone! We're
talking about a total transformation of the entire
transportation system and car industry as we know it! And if
they can wedge their foot in that door first, they will reap
*ALL* the rewards.

Software is the goose that lays golden eggs!

And that's the greatest aspect of software: you design it
once, manufacture it on a effing PC, and then sale virtual
copies of it until the dummies stop buying -- no expensive
printing presses, no expensive factories, and no lazy
factory workers sucking your corporate bank accounts dry.
And if you're *REALLY* smart, you find bogus reasons to
deprecate old versions (by bolting-on few arbitrary features)
and then sale the old software as "something new". And if
you're not smart enough to create new features, no worries,
the hardware manufactures are your best friend!

Sure, you've got to maintain the source code, fix bugs,
etc., but code monkeys are a dime-a-dozen these days, and
only getting cheaper every day.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101784

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 10:23:43 AM UTC-6, Emile van Sebille wrote:
> Hmm, sounds like they're stealing plays from Micro$oft.

"Stealing plays", hardly, they've stolen the *WHOLE* playbook!

Corporations are like drug dealers: First they get you
hooked on the free stuff, then they empty your wallet, and
by the time you realize what happened, you're a strung-out
junkie turnin' tricks on Hollywood boulevard just to support
your habit! 

 ಠ_ಠ

Apple, i'm looking *DIRECTLY* at you!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101769

> On Jan 15, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> wrote:
> 
> On 1/14/2016 3:55 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> But, when you have almost infinitely deep pockets, like
>> Google, you don't need to create *everything* yourself, no,
>> you simply wait for someone else to build it, then wait a
>> little longer for them to market it successfully, and when
>> it's juuuusssst starting to turn a profit, you swoop in,
>> purchase it, and then you drive that "money train" at full
>> speed until its wheels fall off!
>> 
>> And if the owners refuse to sell, no problem, you offer
>> their customers the same services at bargain basement
>> discounts -- then they'll have no choice but to sell, or
>> face bankruptcy. Yep, just another tactic of economic
>> warfare.
> 
> Hmm, sounds like they're stealing plays from Micro$oft.
> 
> Emile
> 

What Micro$oft was actually sued for was worse.  They would approach a small company: “We like your product/technology, we think we are interested in buying you out, but we want to see your code to be sure it is modular/well-documented/etc.”  Then, after looking over the code: “Well, it actually doesn’t fit our plans.  Sorry.”  Six months or so later, essentially identical stuff would turn up in a Micro$soft product.

-Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101770

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM, William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> wrote:
>
> What Micro$oft was actually sued for was worse.  They would approach a small company: “We like your product/technology, we think we are interested in buying you out, but we want to see your code to be sure it is modular/well-documented/etc.”  Then, after looking over the code: “Well, it actually doesn’t fit our plans.  Sorry.”  Six months or so later, essentially identical stuff would turn up in a Micro$soft product.
>

More out of curiosity than anything else, do you have a source?

-- 
Bernardo Sulzbach

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101774

On 15/01/16 18:09, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM, William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> What Micro$oft was actually sued for was worse.  They would approach a small company: “We like your product/technology, we think we are interested in buying you out, but we want to see your code to be sure it is modular/well-documented/etc.”  Then, after looking over the code: “Well, it actually doesn’t fit our plans.  Sorry.”  Six months or so later, essentially identical stuff would turn up in a Micro$soft product.
>>
>
> More out of curiosity than anything else, do you have a source?
>
Doublespace disk compression springs to mind

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101778

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> Doublespace disk compression springs to mind


Does not ring a bell, I was not even born for MS-DOS 6.0.


-- 
Bernardo Sulzbach

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101809

On 15/01/16 18:55, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> Doublespace disk compression springs to mind
>
>
> Does not ring a bell, I was not even born for MS-DOS 6.0.
>
>
it was exactly the scenario described

A company had developed a means of impo=roving the Fat file system (IIRC 
by using a pseudo file system on top to eliminate the wasted space 
caused by incomplete blocks & the end of files)

Microsoft engaged in negotiations to include the technique in MSDOS
the pulled out at the last minute (after obtaining all the technical 
details) & introduced their own version which operated almost identically.

heck PCDos was initially written by a 3rd party who was ripped of by 
Microsoft.

Microsoft are the goto example fro the three 'E' approach to development.

Embrace
Extend
Extinguish

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101811

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> it was exactly the scenario described
>
> A company had developed a means of impo=roving the Fat file system (IIRC by
> using a pseudo file system on top to eliminate the wasted space caused by
> incomplete blocks & the end of files)
>
> Microsoft engaged in negotiations to include the technique in MSDOS
> the pulled out at the last minute (after obtaining all the technical
> details) & introduced their own version which operated almost identically.
>
> heck PCDos was initially written by a 3rd party who was ripped of by
> Microsoft.
>
> Microsoft are the goto example fro the three 'E' approach to development.
>
> Embrace
> Extend
> Extinguish

Did people know this back then or it just surfaced years later? I
suppose that at the beginning MS was more "vulnerable" than it is
today.

-- 
Bernardo Sulzbach

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101813

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach
<mafagafogigante@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did people know this back then or it just surfaced years later? I
> suppose that at the beginning MS was more "vulnerable" than it is
> today.

This was either pre- or early days of the Web which provided to some
degree a shroud of secrecy. Companies today just have to work harder
and pay more lawyers to keep their questionable actions from being
known.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101815

> On Jan 16, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> it was exactly the scenario described
>> 
>> A company had developed a means of impo=roving the Fat file system (IIRC by
>> using a pseudo file system on top to eliminate the wasted space caused by
>> incomplete blocks & the end of files)
>> 
>> Microsoft engaged in negotiations to include the technique in MSDOS
>> the pulled out at the last minute (after obtaining all the technical
>> details) & introduced their own version which operated almost identically.
>> 
>> heck PCDos was initially written by a 3rd party who was ripped of by
>> Microsoft.
>> 
>> Microsoft are the goto example fro the three 'E' approach to development.
>> 
>> Embrace
>> Extend
>> Extinguish
> 
> Did people know this back then or it just surfaced years later?

It was known at the time. It was certainly known by the companies that were ripped off, but they were typically small to really small and couldn’t get traction for their stories in a press that was in thrall to Micro$oft.  It was pretty much only mentioned by contrarian writers like Cringely, and for the most part was lost in the noise over the browser war.

Bill

> I
> suppose that at the beginning MS was more "vulnerable" than it is
> today.
> 
> -- 
> Bernardo Sulzbach
> -- 
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101828

On 01/16/2016 11:00 AM, William Ray Wing wrote:
> It was known at the time. It was certainly known by the companies
> that were ripped off, but they were typically small to really small
> and couldn’t get traction for their stories in a press that was in
> thrall to Microsoft.  It was pretty much only mentioned by contrarian
> writers like Cringely, and for the most part was lost in the noise
> over the browser war.

Stac, the company who Microsoft ripped off to make DoubleSpace, did
successfully sue MS and won (fairly big time).  MS ended up paying them
a fair sum of money in damages.  But it was too late by then. Stac's
original product, and MS DoubleSpace, was no longer really in demand  as
hard drive prices fell and speeds increased.  Stac moved onto reinvent
itself a few times, probably saved by the money MS gave them for
damages.  Eventually though Stac became Previo, and then disappeared for
good, selling its assets to Altirius. I am not sure Stac's destiny would
have changed had MS not ripped them off, though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101829

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/16/2016 11:00 AM, William Ray Wing wrote:
>> It was known at the time. It was certainly known by the companies
>> that were ripped off, but they were typically small to really small
>> and couldn’t get traction for their stories in a press that was in
>> thrall to Microsoft.  It was pretty much only mentioned by contrarian
>> writers like Cringely, and for the most part was lost in the noise
>> over the browser war.
>
> Stac, the company who Microsoft ripped off to make DoubleSpace, did
> successfully sue MS and won (fairly big time).  MS ended up paying them
> a fair sum of money in damages.  But it was too late by then. Stac's
> original product, and MS DoubleSpace, was no longer really in demand  as
> hard drive prices fell and speeds increased.

Not to mention the massive MASSIVE risks of doublespacing your drive -
like total data loss. Even after it was made more reliable, the
reputation was shot. Nobody I spoke to would ever trust that kind of
drive-level compression.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101775

> On Jan 15, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM, William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> wrote:
>> 
>> What Micro$oft was actually sued for was worse.  They would approach a small company: “We like your product/technology, we think we are interested in buying you out, but we want to see your code to be sure it is modular/well-documented/etc.”  Then, after looking over the code: “Well, it actually doesn’t fit our plans.  Sorry.”  Six months or so later, essentially identical stuff would turn up in a Micro$soft product.
>> 
> 
> More out of curiosity than anything else, do you have a source?
> 
> -- 
> Bernardo Sulzbach
> -- 
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

It came out of a Cringely column several years ago, I don’t remember the date.  What I do remember (and failed to add to my note before) was that Micro$soft counted on the mismatch in legal department sizes to pretty much prevent any one small company from suing (or bankrupted them if they tried).  It was typically a footnote in the press stories about the government suit and another bullet point in the unfair competition/tactics alleged.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101777

In the end, wouldn't contemporary economies benefit from more
"legislative fairness" when it comes to technology-focused businesses?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101781

On 15/01/2016 18:53, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
> In the end, wouldn't contemporary economies benefit from more
> "legislative fairness" when it comes to technology-focused businesses?
>

Maybe, but there is as much chance of that happening as Python 2.8 or 
RickedPython ever getting released, or the RUE explaining precisely what 
is wrong with the FSR.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101785

> On Jan 15, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach <mafagafogigante@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM, William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> wrote:
>> 
>> What Micro$oft was actually sued for was worse.  They would approach a small company: “We like your product/technology, we think we are interested in buying you out, but we want to see your code to be sure it is modular/well-documented/etc.”  Then, after looking over the code: “Well, it actually doesn’t fit our plans.  Sorry.”  Six months or so later, essentially identical stuff would turn up in a Micro$soft product.
> 
> More out of curiosity than anything else, do you have a source?

"Startup" by Jerry Kaplan was about an early PDA in the late 1980's that got reviewed and later copied by Microsoft. Great book about Silicon Valley product development  

Chris R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101832

On 1/15/2016 10:09 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM, William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> wrote:
>> What Micro$oft was actually sued for was worse.  They would approach a small company: “We like your product/technology, we think we are interested in buying you out, but we want to see your code to be sure it is modular/well-documented/etc.”  Then, after looking over the code: “Well, it actually doesn’t fit our plans.  Sorry.”  Six months or so later, essentially identical stuff would turn up in a Micro$soft product.
>>
> More out of curiosity than anything else, do you have a source?
>

I thought I replied to this a few days ago from my iPhone but I haven't 
seen my response show up on the list. My apologies if this becomes a dupe.

My favorite book is "Startup: A Silicon Valley Adventure" by Jerry 
Kaplan. He developed the first pen-based computer in the late 1980's 
that became the precursor for PDA's in the 1990's. After showing off the 
prototype to Apple, IBM and Microsoft, they all screwed him over by 
developing competing products within a few years. Microsoft was able to 
bring in an engineer to examine the electronic schematics and source 
code, decline any interest in the product, and form a development team 
for a pen-based Windows version. The venture capitalists squeezed the 
founders out and dismantled the company.

Although out of print for a good many years, the book is now available 
as an ebook.

Chris R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web