Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Current Owner of BeOS Code Claims Zeta is Illegal

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the not-so-fast dept.

Be 140

Hank Powers writes "The legal status of the Zeta operating system that was derived from the source code Be Inc. left shortly before going bankrupt has been unclear for several years. Now, the current owner of the source code, ACCESS, claims "if Herr Korz feels that he holds a legitimate license to the BeOS code he's been using, we're completely unaware of it, and I'd be fascinated to see him produce any substantiation for that claim". The sales of Zeta have been suspended and so has the development been halted as well. OSNews has an article about the recent developments."

cancel ×

140 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What about Zetatalk? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645571)

Anytime I hear anything about Zeta, that bitch Nancy Lieder enters my brain. Can we change the name?
http://www.zetatalk.com/ [zetatalk.com]

how to ask girls if they want to be eaten (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645579)

slashdot i need help. i love eating pussy, but how do you tell girls you want to eat them?

Re:how to ask girls if they want to be eaten (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645831)

slashdot i need help. i love eating pussy, but how do you tell girls you want to eat them?

1. Clandestinely sneak into girls' toiletroom.
2. Hide in booth.
3. Wait until target enters booth next to yours.
4. Wait until target has locked door and has put ass down.
5. Climb over wall.
6. ???
7. Eat pussy!!!

If she is considerably clean, you might also try eating her asshole.

Re:how to ask girls if they want to be eaten (-1, Offtopic)

gazbo (517111) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645947)

I also enjoy this act, and have no problem finding girls who let me perform it on them. My problem is that I'm just not very good at it - do you have any tips?

Re:how to ask girls if they want to be eaten (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18646015)

1. No teeth.
2. Finger-blast her while working the clit with your tongue.
3. Start slow, increase speed/pressure based on reaction.
4. Stay away from browntown.

Re:how to ask girls if they want to be eaten (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18648573)

Be careful, not all girls like fingering, I have met a girl who was completely put off by it.

Re:how to ask girls if they want to be eaten (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18648687)

I also enjoy this act, and have no problem finding girls who let me perform it on them. My problem is that I'm just not very good at it - do you have any tips?
I absolutely love eating pussy. If you want to improve I'd recommend buying the book "She Comes First: The Thinking Man's Guide to Pleasuring a Woman" by "Ian Kerner". The ISBN is "0060538252". The book has a good lots of information on technique. It's definitely helped me improve.

If you need women to practice on, use MySpace.

Re:how to ask girls if they want to be eaten (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18650507)

I wholeheartedly second this. My girl complained that I was too rough on her clit and didn't like me going down on her. After thumbing through "She Comes First" and trying some of the techniques described, she can't get enough. And now I'm in heaven because the more she gets, the more I get if you know what I mean. Good times men, good times.

Re:how to ask girls if they want to be eaten (-1, Offtopic)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646117)

i love eating pussy, but how do you tell girls you want to eat them?

Well, if you're in certain parts of China this shouldn't be a problem (e.g., try a "specialty" restaurant).

Mind you, if you're the kind that likes to eat things that have been boiled alive, you should be ashamed of yourself, you bastard.

[Ducks]

Nothing to see here, yadda yadda... (4, Interesting)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645611)

Now, the current owner of the source code, ACCESS, claims "if Herr Korz feels that he holds a legitimate license to the BeOS code he's been using, we're completely unaware of it, and I'd be fascinated to see him produce any substantiation for that claim".

Perhaps some insider can make this issue more clear (yes, I R'd TFA), but this seems like a non-issue. As I understand it...

This company ACCESS legitimately owns the rights to BeOS. Korz/YellowTAB never had any right to continue work on it as Zeta, and may even have started the project based on leaked source code. But PalmSource never cared, and YellowTAB never bothered doing more than sending nastygrams every few months, probably because they saw no possible financial incentive to do so.

So overall, this sounds an awfully lot like ACCESS has zero interest in BeOS/Zeta(/Haiku?), but their lawyers have advised them to send a periodic reminder of "oh, BTW, we own this", just so they can eat the whole thing on the off chance it ever becomes commercially viable.



So... Why does this count as news? It seems like just the status quo for the past six years, nothing new here.

Re:Nothing to see here, yadda yadda... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645637)

The President has had the right to swipe you in the middle of the night and bundle you on the next plane to Guantanamo for infinite internment for a number of years now. He reminds you of the need to suspend your rights for your own good every few months, just so that he can transport you if ever it becomes politically beneficial. All that's happened is that finally you've been chosen for shipment to Cuba. So... Why does this count as news? It seems like just the status quo for the past six years, nothing new here.

Re:Nothing to see here, yadda yadda... (4, Funny)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645669)

All that's happened is that finally you've been chosen for shipment to Cuba

Yeah, but that represents a real threat, since we have more people in Guantanimo than BeOS/Zeta has users. ;-)



/ joking, for the humor impaired.
// I think...

Re:Nothing to see here, yadda yadda... (5, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645649)

The fact that sales of Zeta have been suspended because of this makes it news.

This is definitely bad news for fans of BeOS. If there's a silver lining, hopefully it will spur more support for Haiku, which as an open-source project is immune from a company deciding to sit on a useful OS instead of letting others maintain and improve on it.

open-source project is immune (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646939)

Not in the least are they immune to the same sorts of troubles as some 'company' when IP rghts are violated.. Its just harder to shut it down when its some sort of distributed creature. But legally, there is really no difference.

Re:open-source project is immune (3, Informative)

despisethesun (880261) | more than 7 years ago | (#18647409)

Legally, there is a difference because Haiku does not use any BeOS code. It is a binary-compatible reimplementation, not a derivative work. The relationship between Haiku and BeOS is similar to the relationship between Linux and Unix. On the surface they look similar and work similar, but under the hood they are very different animals.

Re:open-source project is immune (0, Troll)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18648171)

I'm sorry, I assumed that anyone with a Slashdot account understood what "open-source" meant. It's pretty much the opposite of "proprietary". Hope this helps.

Re:open-source project is immune (2, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18650997)

And beacuse its open source it means it magically cant be infected with other peoples IP?

Re:open-source project is immune (2, Informative)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18651183)

There's a huge difference between a developer walking away with the source code of a semi-popular piece of software so no one else can use it (the scenario we're talking about), and a saboteur sneaking proprietary source code into an open-source project and getting it shut down (the scenario you're imagining). If you want to talk about the latter, go ahead and find a discussion where it's relevant.

Re:open-source project is immune (3, Informative)

be-fan (61476) | more than 7 years ago | (#18648521)

He didn't say open source projects are immune to IP litigation. He said that they are immune to what happened to BeOS (and tons of other cool software) --- having a company sit on perfectly good code without any intention of either continuing it as a product or freeing it so the community can continue development.

Re:Nothing to see here, yadda yadda... (4, Informative)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18647169)

For info: the Haiku website is http://haiku-os.org/ [haiku-os.org]

Re:Nothing to see here, yadda yadda... (2, Interesting)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18649693)

If we're going to treat IP as real property, then we need laws against speculation. "Use it or lose it" is what we should be demanding. Same goes for the Alpha chip. When the question of why we still use x86 was asked a while ago, the answer should have been clear right away. "It's the law."

Re:Nothing to see here, yadda yadda... (2, Interesting)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645707)

If this truly was happening periodically for the past 6 years, why is development and sales being halted now? Does this also happen periodically?

Access Microsoft (5, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645617)

Access, the company now stifling innovation with the dormant BeOS code, is also the Japanese mobile phone corporate giant that bought out PalmOS, lying about offering a smartphone running Linux with a PalmOS GUI/compatibility layer.

Funny how they keep spending money on OS'es that they never profit from. Their mission seems to be to kill OS'es that have a chance to innovate around Microsoft's monopoly. I wonder whether their license to deploy Windows phones in Japan was contingent on doing that kind of Microsoft dirty work, perhaps even secretly funded (or subsidized) by Microsoft.

Re:Access Microsoft (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645725)

Access, the company now stifling innovation with the dormant BeOS code, is also the Japanese mobile phone corporate giant that bought out PalmOS, lying about offering a smartphone running Linux with a PalmOS GUI/compatibility layer.
Well, they at least appear to have released an SDK for one (http://www.access-company.com/news/press/ACCESS/2 007/20070212d_alp_pdk.html), which AFAICS is as close as they were ever going to get because they don't seem to be in the hardware business.

Access Microsoft-It's conspiracy time. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645751)

"Funny how they keep spending money on OS'es that they never profit from. Their mission seems to be to kill OS'es that have a chance to innovate around Microsoft's monopoly. I wonder whether their license to deploy Windows phones in Japan was contingent on doing that kind of Microsoft dirty work, perhaps even secretly funded (or subsidized) by Microsoft."

You'd never be able to prove it, and making a public accussation will get you in "libal" trouble.

Re:Access Microsoft-It's conspiracy time. (1, Flamebait)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645789)

Wondering whether it's true on the evidence so far is perfectly free speech. And researching its facts is even further protected from libel charges. Maybe if you knew more about libel, Anonymous scaredy Coward, you'd be able to spell it.

Re:Access Microsoft-It's conspiracy time. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646007)

It depends where you live - you'd be surprised what passes for free speech in some places outside of the US.

Re:Access Microsoft-It's conspiracy time. (2, Funny)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646051)

That's why I live in the US. Where I was born, so I don't compromise on my freedom. Some other Americans have no excuse for such compromises.

Re:Access Microsoft-It's conspiracy time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18646723)

Wish I had mod points. I can only hope metamoderation addresses those lame flamebait mods.

Re:Access Microsoft-It's conspiracy time. (0, Flamebait)

dhasenan (758719) | more than 7 years ago | (#18647135)

Damn straight -- it should be -1, Sadly Mistaken.

Re:Access Microsoft-It's conspiracy time. (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18648141)

Why don't you back that up, instead of just squeaking out an empty insult?

Re:Access Microsoft-It's conspiracy time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18649919)

...so I don't compromise on my freedom.

No, you just compromise on everybody else's.

Re:Access Microsoft-It's conspiracy time. (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18650281)

No I don't. Every freedom I claim I claim for everyone.

What's your problem, Anonymous slave Coward?

Re:Access Microsoft (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645775)

Great observation, and that makes perfect sense. This would be typical M$ behavior. Another reason that breaking up M$ should be a prime focus of the US government.

It should have happened before.

Cheers

Re:Access Microsoft (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646019)

The other big case the Clinton Department of Justice won against a monopoly/cartel was against Big Tobacco. It's now coming to light that Bush's Justice Department interfered with the followthru [google.com] . As part of their now obvious process of coporatizing the Justice Department to serve monopolies like Microsoft. I expect it's only a matter of time before we learn how Bush deliberately ditched the MS monopoly judgement. His favorite lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, got his lobbyist career started at Preston, Gates, Bill Gates III's father's law firm. I expect there's a lot more to the story, all bad.

Re:Access Microsoft (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18650021)

I expect it's only a matter of time before we learn how Bush deliberately ditched the MS monopoly judgement.

Won't happen. Unlike Mr. Nixon, Bush will have "properly disposed"(deliberately ditched?) all evidence of any wrongdoing, as that is the only lesson learned from the Watergate incident.

Re:Access Microsoft (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18650211)

Probably just by using Windows "Recycler", so it'll be trivial for investigators to undelete. What goes around comes around, faster with every (re)cycle.

Re:Access Microsoft (4, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645797)

Access, the company now stifling innovation with the dormant BeOS code, is also the Japanese mobile phone corporate giant that bought out PalmOS, lying about offering a smartphone running Linux with a PalmOS GUI/compatibility layer.

This is a good example of why we need a way to pry IP out of the hands of organizations that buy it just to stifle it. One could argue that Intellectual Property is just like any property and an owner can make use of it or not to its own pleasure. However, IP is different. IP not really something you own: it is a license (or privilege) to exclusive production. The term "Intellectual Property" itself is misleading, and cooked up to create the illusion that it is something to be owned like a tool, or a piece of land.

In fact, the U.S. Constitution (e.g.) clearly states the purpose for granting such privileges:

The Congress shall have Power . . .

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

This clearly illustrates the purpose of patents, trademarks and copyrights, which is to encourage publication or production of works and products for the benefit of all by giving the creator the ability to exclusively profit from their publication or production. It's a mutually beneficial deal, an agreement between the general public and creators of useful works. If the creator decides not to produce the protected work, then the public gains nothing. One doesn't get exclusive license just to sit on their discoveries. At some point of non-production, the protection should expire early.

Re:Access Microsoft (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645965)

Patent owners should indeed have to prove they are using their "temporary" synthetic monopoly to promote the progress of science or the useful arts by producing the invention, not just sitting on it. That is in fact a parallel to the more sensible trademark rules, which require use of the mark, and active confrontation with diluters. Because trademark's governing "Lanham Act" [wikipedia.org] is designed to protect the consumer from confusion, to protect commerce, not just profitmaking.

Further, patents should register their costs in development of the patent, not just the product after the patent, and expire the patent once either the time or a multiple ROI is reached. The ROI should be a maximum of 10x (probably even just 2x, but actual research and ongoing parameters should establish the precise ROI that promotes). And the time should be per-industry, with software/IT times governed more by Moore's Law and software obsolescence studies. Software itself is obviously (to anyone but greedheads) copyright, not patent, material.

The whole system is rotten. But if it were tweaked a little, pared back to its justifiable framework, it could form the basis for a system that actually promotes the progress that justifies the monopoly in conflict with expression freedom.

Re:Access Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18646095)

"The ROI should be a maximum of 10x (probably even just 2x, but actual research and ongoing parameters should establish the precise ROI that promotes)."
So because I am a better marketer than you, I lose my patent in 2 months while you retains yours for 5 years? That seems pretty arbitrary. You give no compelling reason that patent expiration should move to a ROI model versus a time-based model. Do you have one? You're also complicating the expiration process which will lead to a need for more funding of the patent office and larger government. That's another reason not to use your idea.

Re:Access Microsoft (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18648425)

Yeah, because the only reason you get the artificial monopoly that conflicts with other people's free expression is because totally free expression arguably conflicts with commercial competitiveness. The ROI argument is the only basis for patent monopolies. Once you've made 10x ROI, you've satisfied the commercial concession.

Expiring these after some time without exploitation doesnt' complicate the patent process. It makes it a lot easier for courts to recognize a challenge, when the patentholder fails to produce sufficient evidence. And the reasonably shortened time means all the extra complexity, including extensions and submarine patents, gets cut way down.

In other words, reduce this commercial concession back to its actual justification on a real commercial basis. That will take a lot of the strain off the entire system.

Re:Access Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18649653)

Okay - so how does your system handle this: let's suppose Microsoft patents something and sells it for mere pennies through a store that can only produce 1 widget a day. They can sit on that patent for decades because they'll never reach the ROI.

I think shortening the periods is a much better idea than what you are proposing.

Re:Access Microsoft (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18650095)

That's why I propose expiring on either, whichever comes first. If they can make a profit in the time carved out for protection, OK. Otherwise, let someone else take a crack at it. The Constitutional rule compromising our expression freedom is justified only for that single purpose. Other than that, there's no excuse.

Re:Access Microsoft (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 7 years ago | (#18649581)

Software itself is obviously (to anyone but greedheads) copyright, not patent, material.

Please open your mind a little bit. Software *is* copyrighted, but there is also an argument that the mechanism encoded into the software is itself a virtual device that is patentable. I happen to agree with that decision, and think the biggest problem with software patents is that the bar for "obviousness" is set far too low. But in the end, patents should be enough to allow companies to feel comfortable in investing in R&D without the risk that some open source group will say "I don't want to pay for that-- someone please write a GPL version of that software that the company spent a lot of time and money inventing and give it away for free." Since it's a lot cheaper to copy than to invent, that type of thing can be destructive to innovation.

Re:Access Microsoft (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18650161)

Except that it's not a virtual device. It's a description of the actions of the physical device. That description is copyrightable, which copyright also covers trivial changes. The procedure that a physical device operates is not patented, at least not in unbastardized patent systems.

Copyrights create the protection for R&D investment while competitors must wait to compete without that expense. Patents offer unnecessary extra protections, and unnecessary registration and examination cycles that copyrights can more easily forgo.

Progress in science and the useful arts includes using the invention to make the next invention. Current patent systems completely confound that progress.

Since it's a lot faster to make profits and watch inventions go obsolete, their protection should be much shorter. And the protection should not encourage inventors to merely invent and not produce a product that serves people while waiting for a licensee, or the submarine patent version. These simple reforms would make the protection also motivate to produce.

Re:Access Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18650835)

Applying copyright law to software algorithms is a gross bastardization of the original intent of copyright. You abandon your ideological high ground (complaining about bastardization of patent law) by doing that. (To say nothing of promoting the apeshit crazy notion that software should be protected for terms now easily surpasing a century!) Your argument against software patents further assumes a black/white difference between hardware and software, but in theory, anything that can be done in software can also be implemented in hardware: a device.

In other words, both of your arguments are reverse-engineered, starting with their intended conclusions and making up some premises that will lead to them. Unfortunately, those premises are incorrect so the whole house of cards falls down. Nice waste of time and effort. If you actually want to reform copyright and patent law to work better in the field of computer science (and the gods knows it needs that), you should try pragmatism and appeals to common sense instead of this intellectually dishonest bullshit.

Re:Access Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18647475)

Do you feel the same way when someone violates the GPL? Be developed the BeOS, which was later bought by palm, now Access. Zeta (apparently) snagged a leaked copy of the source code, claimed it as their own, and sold it as their own.

IP is different than real property; Zeta could have re-written BeOS themselves (as Haiku did, or GNU did with Unix command line tools, Linux did with Unix, GNUStep did with OpenStep, etc.).

Re:Access Microsoft (1, Informative)

hacker (14635) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645837)

Access, the company now stifling innovation with the dormant BeOS code, is also the Japanese mobile phone corporate giant that bought out PalmOS, lying about offering a smartphone running Linux with a PalmOS GUI/compatibility layer.

Obviously you are very mistaken [linuxdevices.com] .

Re:Access Microsoft (3, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645909)

lying about offering a smartphone running Linux with a PalmOS GUI/compatibility layer.

Obviously you didn't read the article to which you linked:

Access says ALP 1.0's task-oriented user interface builds on the "legendary" usability of the original Palm OS user interface.
[...]
Also planned for later release is a "Garnet VM Compatibility Kit" which appears to represent the final frontier for Palm OS. Together, the SDK and Garnet VM will provide an upgrade path for hundreds of thousands of Palm OS application developers, Access says.

In other words, no PalmOS on their Linux phone. They've been "planning" it for years. They announced they'd be releasing it in 2006. 2007 will be at least half over, and they'll still be "planning" it. Liars.

Wishing doesn't make it so, for you either.

Re:Access Microsoft (1)

adrianmonk (890071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18649035)

In other words, no PalmOS on their Linux phone. They've been "planning" it for years. They announced they'd be releasing it in 2006. 2007 will be at least half over, and they'll still be "planning" it. Liars.

Yeah, lying is the only possible explanation why it isn't out yet. Because, as we all know, major rewrites of operating systems are always delivered on time. :-)

My personal guess is that they fully intend to release a Linux-based operating system with a Palm OS compatibility layer, but this simply takes a lot of time, and they probably aren't paying very many people to work on it, which makes it take even more time.

Re:Access Microsoft (1)

grand1971 (732229) | more than 7 years ago | (#18650205)

In other words, no PalmOS on their Linux phone. They've been "planning" it for years. They announced they'd be releasing it in 2006. 2007 will be at least half over, and they'll still be "planning" it. Liars.


Actually, I had the chance to see a working prototype of APL + Garnett VM and SDK during last 3GSM World Congress in Barcelona. Not ready to ship, but not too far away, imho

Mod Parent UP (1)

mungtor (306258) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645921)

It's actually informative, not tinfoil hat ranting like the GP.

Re:Access Microsoft (2, Informative)

mcbridematt (544099) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645953)

PalmSource (who ACCESS bought) wasn't really involved directly with the BeOS purchase, it was purchased before Handspring was acquired and the company was split IIRC.

And when PalmSource did release their new Palm OS (Cobalt), despite a subsequent revision, supposedly at the request of Palm OS licensees, it died because PalmOne (current day "Palm Inc.") weren't interested in the OS they paid for in the first place. No one else wanted to launch an OS clearly superior to PalmOS 5, WinCE and probably the Linux mobile offerings of the day and Cobalt died a silent death.
All the licenses bar Palm Inc, and GSPDA didn't launch any further devices, only one has joined (Jaina) and launched since, leading to M$ dominating, not by monopoly, but because they actually have a clue how to co-operate with licensees - not to mention a programming environment which doesn't niche market industry programmers running.
PalmSource, realizing this, bought China MobileSoft to concentrate on Linux phones, then was bought by ACCESS, *after Palm lost the bidding race for the IP it use to own*, who, presumably, believes the future is high-end mass-market phones.

Now we have a situation where Palm Inc is selling Windows Mobile based devices as a sheer result on stupidity by Ed Colligan and Co after Handspring and Palm merged.

For those who didn't read: ACCESS doesn't have that much to do with the lack of a legal, original BeOS based environment. Palm Inc. paid for it, split, killed it by proxy, ACCESS doesn't want anything to do with it other than any concrete IP.

Re:Access Microsoft (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18648623)

AFAICR, Access bought China MobileSoft after it bought PalmOS, not Palm buying CMS before Access bought them. How do you come by your chronology?

Your MS conspiracy hinges on one thing... (1)

trimbo (127919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18648891)

People would have to be using or willing to use BeOS/ZeOS.

The OS has been out for 10 years without any ownership debate and what kind of market penetration does it have? 0.000005% maybe? There could be a thousand people worldwide who actually run it 50% of the time?

Microsoft broke the law to get Windows where it is against OS/2, DOS clones and Mac, let's stop claiming that Linux and BeOS are losing on the desktop because of a massive MS conspiracy. They're losing because few desktop apps would run on them and consumers just want their Quicken, games, etc..

Re:Your MS conspiracy hinges on one thing... (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18650993)

You think that Microsoft for some reason refrained from using the same kinds of tricks against BeOS that it used against other OSes? When Be tried to make deals with OEMs to bundle or pre-install BeOS as a free option, Microsoft "persuaded" them not to. The fact that Windows was already installed on their PC when they first plugged it in had more to do with its acceptance by consumers than the availablity of apps for it (which wasn't all that huge in the early days).

Sure, today Microsoft no longer needs to "conspire" to hold onto most of the OS market, because of customer lock-in, but back when BeOS took a shot at that market (admittedly a few years later than it should have), Microsoft still needed to... and they did.

I saw this happen once in my neighborhood (4, Funny)

jpellino (202698) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645619)

Well, not exactly, it was actually two terriers fighting over a dry chicken bone.

Re:I saw this happen once in my neighborhood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645973)

Mitt Romney wonders if the country is ready for a president who's a Mormon. I say, what's one letter? --JP, Jan. 07

I don't get it--what does that mean?

Re:I saw this happen once in my neighborhood (1, Offtopic)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645997)

It means our current president is one letter shy of being a Mormon.

Do you hear that sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18650579)

"Whoosh!"

Offtopic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645627)

Offtopic -1,

Can somebody please tell me this image [geocities.com] is related to which open source project?

Re:Offtopic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645715)

watch out, something fishy about this link

It's related to most of them, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18647545)

as most of them go nowhere.

Linux stole the code too (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645695)

Linux code was stolen from , SCO, IBM and microsoft, but that didn't stopped Linux from being sold commercially.

Re:Linux stole the code too (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18650563)

Prove it cocksmoke.

Thank goodness for OpenBEOS?? Oh wait... (-1, Troll)

borgheron (172546) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645741)

No one uses that either. :) D'oh!

GJC

I own the patent on sealing wax for evelopes (1)

sizzzzlerz (714878) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645785)

Don't you dare try and create your own based on my intellectual property!

Re:I own the patent on sealing wax for evelopes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18646489)

>I own the patent on sealing wax for evelopes
Good thing that nobody else knowswhatan "evelope" is.

Hurray! I've been asking for this for a long time (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645825)

Hurray! I've been asking for this for a long time. BeOS is dead, dammit, and I want it to stay dead. Get it?!

Don't bother reading the article ... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645895)

Here's what happens if you do:

From TFA:

Object not found!

The requested URL was not found on this server. The link on the referring page seems to be wrong or outdated. Please inform the author of that page about the error.

If you think this is a server error, please contact the webmaster.
Error 404
www.osnews.com
Sat Apr 7 10:14:11 2007
Apache/2.0.54 (Linux/SUSE)

read this one instead ... (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645969)

'If Herr Korz feels that he holds a legitimate license to the BeOS code [bitsofnews.com] he's been using, we're completely unaware of it, and I'd be fascinated to see him produce any substantiation for that claim'

was Don't bother reading the article ... (Score:2)

Doh! Someone feed the bloody cat! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645911)

Its like watching the rise of Atari & Commodore fight
it out in a dirty mudwrestling contest on retro cable.

Nostalgia (5, Funny)

BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645913)

Oh for the days when Programmers didn't need to double major in Law.

Re:Nostalgia (1)

shaneo (47763) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646031)

So are you longing for the days when open source code wasn't widely usable/viable and nobody cared enough to bring lawsuits, or for a society where all code is written "for hire" and there's no disputing who owns the rights?

The legal problems don't come up until you try to "extend" someone else's work or accept contributions back into your own. Seems relatively easy to dodge these bullets.

Then again, an intentionally ambiguous license controlled by a mad-man with an agenda isn't really helping anyone out here, either...but that's a red herring in this argument.

Re:Nostalgia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18646165)

That ended the day the 22-yr old son of a Seattle lawyer signed a deal to develop the OS for the IBM PC.

Re:Nostalgia (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18647129)

A five year old knows you can't take something that isn't yours...

You don't need a law degree. Just ask a five year old.

Re:Nostalgia (1)

Ithika (703697) | more than 7 years ago | (#18647577)

For a technology site there are an awful lot of neo-luddites around here.

Re:Nostalgia (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 7 years ago | (#18650755)

> > A five year old knows you can't take something that isn't yours...

> You don't need a law degree. Just ask a five year old.


Yeah, but most five year olds have also learned that you should share your toys with the other kids. If you have a fun toy, you don't hoard it and keep it somewhere that nobody else can have any fun with it.

The folks who "own" BeOS don't seem to have picked up on that kindergarten lesson, though.

Re:Nostalgia (2)

BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) | more than 7 years ago | (#18651215)

Was commenting more on the number of legal stories. I just want to write code, man:

"Bobby, can I use a linked list for a one-click web site?"
"No Daddy, they're patented. And don't try a triple linked list. They're patented too"
"But Bobby, a patent must be novel, obvious and useful!"
"Don't get my started Daddy. I still have to read my RIAA Preschooler Education Kit. Say that CD has a Sharpie Label. Bad Daddy, Bad!"

Article sucks, but interesting topic (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645979)

How much code is out there that could be re-used, saving time & money, but we can't legally get to? It's a fork off the 'should software be protected by copyright or patent' debate. Sensibly, both patents and copyrights are limited in time, for just this reason. Holders of such rights are continually lobbying to extend them for unreasonable (to me) periods. Whilst I understand that an aging rock star would want to extend protection to - say - the end of his/her life, should this apply to s/w? How about a 'use it ir lose it' clause. Any s/w not actively marketed, supported and developed for 5 years, (which in an eternity in the tech world), should automatically become open source. Of course, anyone benefiting financially from this could/should contribute something to the owner of the rights...

Owner of the code - but they're not using it! (3, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645981)

It's funny how Access owns the code, yet they're not doing a damned thing with it. They've halted distribution of a product that isn't competing with their business, and if history is any indicator, they aren't ever going to release any BeOS-related software ever. They are an IP company, they buy stuff up, sit on it for a while then license/resell to actual inventors and manufacturers for a profit. This kind of business is one the most revolting abuses of the 21st century, because all they do is kidnap information for a ransom, potentially hiding it away forever if no buyer comes along to pay their inflated price. This type of activity precisely underlines the need for patent reform. This doesn't help anyone except the people cashing the checks, ultimately IP-hoarding hurts everyone as it stymies technological progress. BeOS had some great concepts ten years ago, but through the company's pitfalls and this now legal bullshit, the then-modern real-time paradigm is now grossly outdated. Why don't we all go out and buy all the fresh fruits at the market, then sit on them for a few years and see what's left of them ? It's a waste, it's stupid and it's inconsiderate. Access is all those bad things!

Re:Owner of the code - but they're not using it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18646109)

There are practical uses - they can use it as a research OS from the standpoint of conducting benchmarks. They can also extract code, algorithms, and architectural ideas from the sourcebase without the risk of being sued by BeOS's IP owner (since they are said owner). Lastly, maybe someone will make them an offer they can't refuse. As Donald Trump once said, if you have something that someone else wants, that's worth money.

Re:Owner of the code - but they're not using it! (2, Insightful)

bigpat (158134) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646293)

All those things might be useful, but there should be a clearer abandonment clause to IP. If you aren't producing products and actually selling them, or using IP in your publications for say a period of 5 years, then you should lose the exclusive right... 'Use it or lose it' should be the law of the land. It actually used to be part of the law for copyright in the US, but it was stripped out in favor of less red tape. But I don't think there needs to be red tape, like there was with registration with Library of Congress, companies should simply keep and make records of their use of IP in their business so when challenged they have to provide records. Sure the law could be little more than a nuisance if it is not written properly, but it should make it clear that the products must be purchased by persons independent of the company or if the IP is in support of a product or service then it must be actively published and distributed (even if not sold) also to persons independent of the company.

Re:Owner of the code - but they're not using it! (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18651139)

The founding idea of "use it or lose it" is pure and honest, but we all know there are easy loopholes around it, and it's called the paper release. Once again I wish people had any sort of integrity and discipline and simply stopped throwing money at these IP goons. If the "business" of patent hoarding ceases to be profitable, they will stop doing it and find some other racket.

Patent != Copyright (1)

eean (177028) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646229)

This has nothing to do with patent reform. They bought the copyright to BeOS.

Copyright does need reforming, but not for the case of technology. Copyright's should probably last only 14 years as opposed to a 70, but thats pretty damn irrelevant for software. And source code is usually under "trade secret" anyways.

Re:Patent != Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18648977)

> Copyright's should probably last only 14 years as opposed to a 70, but thats pretty damn irrelevant for software

Egad, no. 50 years from creation, never renewable, seems reasonable for copyrights.

Patents should be 15 years, and only when there is a working prototype. 7 years without one. Waiver and delay should cause you to lose the patent, much as the case is with trademarks. It should at least be an allowable cause of action for challenging a patent.

These specific lengths of time should be put into the constitution. Problematic as that may be, the words "reasonable" and "limited" in the current constitution sadly have no place in today's climate.

These are pretty long intervals, but shorter than the current lengths, and don't impede the progress of the useful arts as they do now (the situation for drugs is worse than it is for software).

Re:Owner of the code - but they're not using it! (1)

Frozen Void (831218) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646621)

Patents and copyrights serve no purpose in Information age.

Re:Owner of the code - but they're not using it! (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646631)

IMHO if they bought the code they may do whatever they want. There is no obligation for them to open the code. Fuethermore I doubt that they don't use ist. I could imagine that some of the beos ideas are very usefule in the resource-limite devices Access Inc is usually providing Software for!

Re:Owner of the code - but they're not using it! (2, Interesting)

tji (74570) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646711)

They own the code. They can do whatever they want with it.

I was a big fan of BeOS. I went to their first demo-tour in Ann Arbor, way back when. I never bought a dual processor PowerPC BeBox, but I did install and use it once it became available for intel. So, I think their letting BeOS whither and die is a HUGE waste of all that good code, with incredible multimedia capabilities and many other advances that are still not met in Mac OS or Linux (and certainly not Windows).

When they were negotiating with Apple, I was ready to make the jump to Mac OS. (I eventually moved to Mac OS (NeXTStep based), after a while, because it was the best available desktop OS). When Palm bought the code, I was ready to more to using Palm devices. But, since they never released a product based on it, I never bought a Palm.

I, too would love to see a BeOS operating system available. But, it's their code. They are under no responsibility to release it, allow other people to benefit from it, or release the code. Such is life.

Re:Owner of the code - but they're not using it! (3, Interesting)

Britz (170620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646717)

Actually BeOS went down because of the lack of apps. Adobe never ported Photoshop and Steinberg never ported Cubase even though there was talk about both. Maybe a company with a fruit as its logo had something to do with the Photoshop port never coming through, but I dunno, maybe some other Slashdotter can shed some light on the history of BeOS.

With the current free software that rivals proprietary software in both quality and features in many fields and that seems to be made for porting fringe operating systems seem to stand a much better chance. Just look at Ubuntu. Personally I am running Debian as my desktop OS.

Parent may not be right about Access being responsible for the downfall of BeOS, but now, that BeOS actually may have a chance (I heard that Firefox was ported for example) they may be responsible for it never coming back.

Re:Owner of the code - but they're not using it! (1)

adrianmonk (890071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18649159)

It's funny how Access owns the code, yet they're not doing a damned thing with it. They've halted distribution of a product that isn't competing with their business, and if history is any indicator, they aren't ever going to release any BeOS-related software ever.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. The current shipping version of Palm OS is Palm OS 5.x. Several years ago, after Palm had bought Be (in which I believe they got both source code and talent), Palm created Palm OS 6. This had lots of multimedia capabilities, supposedly based on BeOS.

Here's the problem, though: this was a little bit after Palm split itself into PalmOne and PalmSource, the former being the hardware portion of the company and the latter being the software portion. PalmSource had OS 6 ready, and they even released a Palm OS Simulator that you could run on Windows. I have a copy and even used it to verify that my company's Palm OS software would run OK on Palm OS 6. It definitely existed. But, although Palm OS 6 definitely existed (in fact, they released at least 6.0 and 6.1), it was a bit of a flop. It was PalmSource that made the code, but PalmOne (the hardware company) never actually released any devices with Palm OS 6 installed. And Palm OS isn't like Windows or Linux: it's not modular where you can just get some drivers and run the OS on any hardware and it detects what hardware you actually have and configures itself for that. Instead, there is a custom build of Palm OS for every device released. So it basically has to come on the device from the factory in order to be able to use it. PalmOne controlled what OS release came on the device from the factory, and they never chose to release a device with OS 6 on it.

At that point, OS 6 was basically dead in the water. Then later ACCESS bought PalmSource and announced they were ditching all the effort behind OS 6 and substituting a Linux kernel instead. Palm OS 6 had been based on its own custom kernel (which was quite possibly descended from BeOS as well).

So, this isn't really a "buy up patents" business model. Instead, it's a company that let their technology stagnate for a while, then decided it was time to do something new, but didn't quite pull it off. Then they decided to switch to Linux, and who knows what will happen with that (although it's a better idea than the previous one, I think).

Zeta 1.5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18646111)

Torrent link please

AHAHAHA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18646335)

I bet Eugenia just shat herself in fear that the almighty BeOS might disappear from the tech industry radar for...oh, how many times is it now anyway? More than two, at least. No one cares about Yellow Tab, no one cares about Zeta. They care about Windows, Linux, one of the flavours of BSD...possibly Solaris now that it's opening up more. Wave of the future and all that. BeOS? At best, it's a toy for developers who could be spending their work improving operating systems that actually have a shelf life.

Funny how I submitted this on Wednesday evening... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18646483)

...and it only appears now....

Gotta love slashdot. I also seem to have recalled explaining a few more things in my summary that would have prevented the fringe element from heading off into conspiracy land as well....

First off, the reason why ACCESS is only *now* responding on this issue is because Korz was making overtures towards open sourcing the code--something that ACCESS could not keep silent about. As Lefty says in his comments both at bitsofnews and OSNews.com, they'd been sending cease and desist letters for some time already and Korz was ignoring them. To try and take legal action would be only to invite lawsuits over code that ACCESS saw no income from; so why should they stick out their necks for a libel suit with the possibility of generating only negative income? It is only because ACCESS wanted to prevent any possibility of Korz giving away their property they chose to risk the possible libel suit now.

Secondly, 'Zeta' was a dead parrot. It was NOT truly being developed, because obviously Korz did NOT have access (pun unintended) to the source code or he would have done more with it. The only true successor to BeOS is Haiku, which as I stated in my summary is nearing its 1.0 release with all originally developed closed-room re-engineered code that is BeOS R5 compatible.

Third, BeOS Max PE which is developed by a Greek coder to be the best and most updated (using bits of third party hacks and including newer drivers for more hardware as well as bits of Haiku that work better than the old BeOS parts) may be forced to discontinue development. This is something that would be a tragedy, since it is thanks to Vaspar's work on this (free) project many of us are able to run BeOS on new hardware. And I say that as someone who bought BeOS in the store almost a month or two before the announcement they were going bankrupt.

--bornagainpenguin

Sorry to state to obvious... (1)

Arkan (24212) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646703)

... but it's another reason to use (really) open source software. No such thing whould happen with GPL/BSD/OSI...'ed code.

Time to join Haiku, I think...

--
Arkan

You never heard of SCO? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18647419)

You must be new here.

That sucks (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646823)

BeOS was a really good OS for its time, its a shame that its never gotten much of a chance. Imagine tho if OS X was actually BeOS.. it could have been..

Maybe Haiku will turn into something equally as cool.

Re:That sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18647819)

yeah it could have been shitty. Get over it already, its fucking dead.

coolness, Amiga Drama without the cool tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18647449)

coolness, Amiga Drama without the cool tech, it's dead, let it die, don't buy it, the quicker it dies a commercial death the quicker these a#$holes go away

BeOS has been gone too long (1)

supachupa (823309) | more than 7 years ago | (#18651223)

I've been a big fan of BeOS ever since I first used it years ago. I was so impressed to be able to load it up on my obsolete dual proc pentium pro system and see it come back to life. Any other operating system I put on it was way too slow.. even Linux. But BeOS truly did take advantage of having two processors. Suddenly it was like I had a 400MHz Pentium II. It was a PC resurrection! But then, stupid Palm bought it and killed it. Development and especially interest in it all but died. This operating system was truly the best Operating system, potentially, for end users. This is what I wish the MacOS operating system evolved into, instead of OSX (not that OSX is half bad). With the impending release of Haiku 1.0, though, I am left wondering.. is it too little too late? The look and feel of it are so dated now. There are very limited applications available for it compared to other operating systems. Pooh on Palm for killing this OS. I hope it's not too late for it to make a comeback, but I wonder if the only way to make that happen is to open source it? Otherwise, I wonder if there will be the critical mass to modernize it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?