On 2025-01-05 18:27, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Obviously, DEC weren't happy with the apparent similarity of Windows NT
>>>> and their product, VMS. In fact, when DEC's engineers noticed the
>>>> problem, and brought their concern to the senior management, suing
>>>> Microsoft for intellectual property violation was a possibility.
>>>> Instead, there was an out of court settlement with Microsoft.
>>>> As a result, `Affinity for OpenVMS', a scheme to train DEC's technicians
>>>> and promote NT and OpenVMS as complimentary pieces of a networking
>>>> solution was announced in summer of 1995. Plus, Microsoft promised to
>>>> maintain NT support for the DEC Alpha processor and paid DEC up to $100
>>>> million. I'd say Bill Gates got off quite lightly.'
>>>
>>> "Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their
>>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose,
>>> with it.
>>
>> $100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
>
>
> For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, likely
> worth it.
>

In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.

So $100 million was almost 7% of that.

Hardly a "token".

And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.

On 1/5/25 10:47 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2025-01-05 18:27, Joel wrote:
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Obviously, DEC weren't happy with the apparent similarity of
>>>>> Windows NT
>>>>> and their product, VMS. In fact, when DEC's engineers noticed the
>>>>> problem, and brought their concern to the senior management, suing
>>>>> Microsoft for intellectual property violation was a possibility.
>>>>> Instead, there was an out of court settlement with Microsoft.
>>>>> As a result, `Affinity for OpenVMS', a scheme to train DEC's
>>>>> technicians
>>>>> and promote NT and OpenVMS as complimentary pieces of a networking
>>>>> solution was announced in summer of 1995. Plus, Microsoft promised to
>>>>> maintain NT support for the DEC Alpha processor and paid DEC up to
>>>>> $100
>>>>> million. I'd say Bill Gates got off quite lightly.'
>>>>
>>>> "Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their
>>>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose,
>>>> with it.
>>>
>>> $100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
>>
>> For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, likely
>> worth it.
>
> In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.
>
>
> So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
>
> Hardly a "token".
>
> And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.

How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-05 19:58, Joel Crump wrote:
> On 1/5/25 10:47 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2025-01-05 18:27, Joel wrote:
>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Obviously, DEC weren't happy with the apparent similarity of
>>>>>> Windows NT
>>>>>> and their product, VMS. In fact, when DEC's engineers noticed the
>>>>>> problem, and brought their concern to the senior management, suing
>>>>>> Microsoft for intellectual property violation was a possibility.
>>>>>> Instead, there was an out of court settlement with Microsoft.
>>>>>> As a result, `Affinity for OpenVMS', a scheme to train DEC's
>>>>>> technicians
>>>>>> and promote NT and OpenVMS as complimentary pieces of a networking
>>>>>> solution was announced in summer of 1995. Plus, Microsoft promised to
>>>>>> maintain NT support for the DEC Alpha processor and paid DEC up to
>>>>>> $100
>>>>>> million. I'd say Bill Gates got off quite lightly.'
>>>>>
>>>>> "Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their
>>>>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose,
>>>>> with it.
>>>>
>>>> $100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
>>>
>>> For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, likely
>>> worth it.
>>
>> In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.
>>
>>
>> So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
>>
>> Hardly a "token".
>>
>> And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
>
>
> How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
>

I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> Obviously, DEC weren't happy with the apparent similarity of
>>>>>>> Windows NT
>>>>>>> and their product, VMS. In fact, when DEC's engineers noticed the
>>>>>>> problem, and brought their concern to the senior management, suing
>>>>>>> Microsoft for intellectual property violation was a possibility.
>>>>>>> Instead, there was an out of court settlement with Microsoft.
>>>>>>> As a result, `Affinity for OpenVMS', a scheme to train DEC's
>>>>>>> technicians
>>>>>>> and promote NT and OpenVMS as complimentary pieces of a networking
>>>>>>> solution was announced in summer of 1995. Plus, Microsoft promised to
>>>>>>> maintain NT support for the DEC Alpha processor and paid DEC up to
>>>>>>> $100
>>>>>>> million. I'd say Bill Gates got off quite lightly.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their
>>>>>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose,
>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> $100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
>>>>
>>>> For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, likely
>>>> worth it.
>>>
>>> In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.
>>>
>>> So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
>>>
>>> Hardly a "token".
>>>
>>> And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
>>
>> How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
>
>I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time.

It "literally" is before XP, thus not making the case M$ lost
anything, here.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-06 03:31, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Obviously, DEC weren't happy with the apparent similarity of
>>>>>>>> Windows NT
>>>>>>>> and their product, VMS. In fact, when DEC's engineers noticed the
>>>>>>>> problem, and brought their concern to the senior management, suing
>>>>>>>> Microsoft for intellectual property violation was a possibility.
>>>>>>>> Instead, there was an out of court settlement with Microsoft.
>>>>>>>> As a result, `Affinity for OpenVMS', a scheme to train DEC's
>>>>>>>> technicians
>>>>>>>> and promote NT and OpenVMS as complimentary pieces of a networking
>>>>>>>> solution was announced in summer of 1995. Plus, Microsoft promised to
>>>>>>>> maintain NT support for the DEC Alpha processor and paid DEC up to
>>>>>>>> $100
>>>>>>>> million. I'd say Bill Gates got off quite lightly.'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their
>>>>>>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose,
>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
>>>>>
>>>>> For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, likely
>>>>> worth it.
>>>>
>>>> In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.
>>>>
>>>> So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
>>>>
>>>> Hardly a "token".
>>>>
>>>> And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
>>>
>>> How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
>>
>> I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time.
>
>
> It "literally" is before XP, thus not making the case M$ lost
> anything, here.
>

The subject was whether or not Windows NT copied much of its design and
architecture from VMS.

It did.

It was so obvious that Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.

7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>> "Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their
>>>>>>>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose,
>>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> $100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, likely
>>>>>> worth it.
>>>>>
>>>>> In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.
>>>>>
>>>>> So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hardly a "token".
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
>>>>
>>>> How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
>>>
>>> I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time.
>>
>> It "literally" is before XP, thus not making the case M$ lost
>> anything, here.
>
>The subject was whether or not Windows NT copied much of its design and
>architecture from VMS.
>
>It did.
>
>It was so obvious that Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
>was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.
>
>7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.

It's a bit of capital but likely well worth it to avoid the endless
process. XP and 7 brought in mad bucks to M$.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-06 10:03, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> "Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their
>>>>>>>>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose,
>>>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> $100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, likely
>>>>>>> worth it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hardly a "token".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
>>>>>
>>>>> How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
>>>>
>>>> I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time.
>>>
>>> It "literally" is before XP, thus not making the case M$ lost
>>> anything, here.
>>
>> The subject was whether or not Windows NT copied much of its design and
>> architecture from VMS.
>>
>> It did.
>>
>> It was so obvious that Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
>> was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.
>>
>> 7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.
>
>
> It's a bit of capital but likely well worth it to avoid the endless
> process. XP and 7 brought in mad bucks to M$.
Again: irrelevant.

A lawsuit is NOT an "endless process" and spending $100 million to avoid
one means you didn't like your chances in court.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> "Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their
>>>>>>>>>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose,
>>>>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> $100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, likely
>>>>>>>> worth it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hardly a "token".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
>>>>>
>>>>> I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time.
>>>>
>>>> It "literally" is before XP, thus not making the case M$ lost
>>>> anything, here.
>>>
>>> The subject was whether or not Windows NT copied much of its design and
>>> architecture from VMS.
>>>
>>> It did.
>>>
>>> It was so obvious that Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
>>> was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.
>>>
>>> 7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.
>>
>> It's a bit of capital but likely well worth it to avoid the endless
>> process. XP and 7 brought in mad bucks to M$.
>Again: irrelevant.
>
>A lawsuit is NOT an "endless process" and spending $100 million to avoid
>one means you didn't like your chances in court.

BS, MS would've eventually prevailed, but at what cost?

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-06 10:23, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up their
>>>>>>>>>>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to lose,
>>>>>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> $100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business, likely
>>>>>>>>> worth it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hardly a "token".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> It "literally" is before XP, thus not making the case M$ lost
>>>>> anything, here.
>>>>
>>>> The subject was whether or not Windows NT copied much of its design and
>>>> architecture from VMS.
>>>>
>>>> It did.
>>>>
>>>> It was so obvious that Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
>>>> was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.
>>>>
>>>> 7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.
>>>
>>> It's a bit of capital but likely well worth it to avoid the endless
>>> process. XP and 7 brought in mad bucks to M$.
>> Again: irrelevant.
>>
>> A lawsuit is NOT an "endless process" and spending $100 million to avoid
>> one means you didn't like your chances in court.
>
>
> BS, MS would've eventually prevailed, but at what cost?
>

So they paid $100 million to avoid... ...nothing?

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:di6onjtphlt0kd0rgh17sivkee4m7d34i3@4ax.com...
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> "Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to
>>>>>>>>> lose,
>>>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> $100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business,
>>>>>>> likely
>>>>>>> worth it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hardly a "token".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
>>>>>
>>>>> How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
>>>>
>>>> I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time.
>>>
>>> It "literally" is before XP, thus not making the case M$ lost
>>> anything, here.
>>
>>The subject was whether or not Windows NT copied much of its design and
>>architecture from VMS.
>>
>>It did.
>>
>>It was so obvious that Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
>>was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.
>>
>>7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.
>
>
> It's a bit of capital but likely well worth it to avoid the endless
> process. XP and 7 brought in mad bucks to M$.

What would be endless about it, unless it was copied?

"Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in message
news:vlh6qn$1nndr$1@dont-email.me...
> On 2025-01-06 10:03, Joel wrote:
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to
>>>>>>>>>> lose,
>>>>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> $100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business,
>>>>>>>> likely
>>>>>>>> worth it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hardly a "token".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
>>>>>
>>>>> I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time.
>>>>
>>>> It "literally" is before XP, thus not making the case M$ lost
>>>> anything, here.
>>>
>>> The subject was whether or not Windows NT copied much of its design and
>>> architecture from VMS.
>>>
>>> It did.
>>>
>>> It was so obvious that Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
>>> was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.
>>>
>>> 7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.
>>
>>
>> It's a bit of capital but likely well worth it to avoid the endless
>> process. XP and 7 brought in mad bucks to M$.
> Again: irrelevant.
>
> A lawsuit is NOT an "endless process" and spending $100 million to avoid
> one means you didn't like your chances in court.

Exactly, you don't pay that kind of money unless you feel there is a better
than average chance you will lose the court case and the damages will be
even higher.

IOW, such as you know some of it was copied.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0r7onjtchkh2kn3agua29t4ldc21t9rn86@4ax.com...
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Getting off lightly" in a settlement means plaintiffs gave up
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> butthurt suit, for a small token settlement - M$ had little to
>>>>>>>>>>> lose,
>>>>>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> $100 million in the mind '90s was hardly a "token".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For an individual, sure, but to M$ as a cost of doing business,
>>>>>>>>> likely
>>>>>>>>> worth it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In 1995, Microsoft's net income after taxes were $1,453,000,000.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So $100 million was almost 7% of that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hardly a "token".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And that's what they paid to avoid a suit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How much did Windows XP or 7 bring in?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I literally just told you what Microsoft net income was at the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> It "literally" is before XP, thus not making the case M$ lost
>>>>> anything, here.
>>>>
>>>> The subject was whether or not Windows NT copied much of its design and
>>>> architecture from VMS.
>>>>
>>>> It did.
>>>>
>>>> It was so obvious that Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
>>>> was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.
>>>>
>>>> 7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.
>>>
>>> It's a bit of capital but likely well worth it to avoid the endless
>>> process. XP and 7 brought in mad bucks to M$.
>>Again: irrelevant.
>>
>>A lawsuit is NOT an "endless process" and spending $100 million to avoid
>>one means you didn't like your chances in court.
>
>
> BS, MS would've eventually prevailed, but at what cost?

Would they have prevailed, evidence would suggest quite differently.

Of course we know NT wasn't built from the ground up but rather was an
extension of the development of OS/2

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>> Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
>>>>> was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.
>>>>>
>>>>> 7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.
>>>>
>>>> It's a bit of capital but likely well worth it to avoid the endless
>>>> process. XP and 7 brought in mad bucks to M$.
>>> Again: irrelevant.
>>>
>>> A lawsuit is NOT an "endless process" and spending $100 million to avoid
>>> one means you didn't like your chances in court.
>>
>> BS, MS would've eventually prevailed, but at what cost?
>
>So they paid $100 million to avoid... ...nothing?

It's definitely not nothing, it's a drag.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-06 11:17, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Microsoft paid DEC 7% of what their net income
>>>>>> was in 1995 to avoid a lawsuit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7% of a company's income is NOT a token amount.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a bit of capital but likely well worth it to avoid the endless
>>>>> process. XP and 7 brought in mad bucks to M$.
>>>> Again: irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> A lawsuit is NOT an "endless process" and spending $100 million to avoid
>>>> one means you didn't like your chances in court.
>>>
>>> BS, MS would've eventually prevailed, but at what cost?
>>
>> So they paid $100 million to avoid... ...nothing?
>
>
> It's definitely not nothing, it's a drag.
>

Look.

Learn to admit when you're wrong.

People who actually know about operating systems have pointed out...

....IN DETAIL...

....how Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.

On 1/6/25 1:56 PM, Scout wrote:

>> MS would've eventually prevailed, but at what cost?
>
> Would they have prevailed, evidence would suggest quite differently.
>
> Of course we know NT wasn't built from the ground up but rather was an
> extension of the development of OS/2

Nonsense.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>> MS would've eventually prevailed, but at what cost?
>>>
>>> So they paid $100 million to avoid... ...nothing?
>>
>> It's definitely not nothing, it's a drag.
>
>Look.
>
>Learn to admit when you're wrong.

Take that advice, yourself.

>People who actually know about operating systems have pointed out...
>
>...IN DETAIL...
>
>...how Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.

That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's
unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-06 11:36, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> MS would've eventually prevailed, but at what cost?
>>>>
>>>> So they paid $100 million to avoid... ...nothing?
>>>
>>> It's definitely not nothing, it's a drag.
>>
>> Look.
>>
>> Learn to admit when you're wrong.
>
>
> Take that advice, yourself.
>
>
>> People who actually know about operating systems have pointed out...
>>
>> ...IN DETAIL...
>>
>> ...how Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.
>
>
> That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's
> unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible.
>

Not copying CODE doesn't mean not copying ANYTHING.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>> Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.
>>
>> That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's
>> unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible.
>
>Not copying CODE doesn't mean not copying ANYTHING.

What, tangibly, was copied? An idea? It's a typical case of claiming
ownership of something intangible. MS did settle but not *lose* the
case.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-06 16:01, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.
>>>
>>> That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's
>>> unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible.
>>
>> Not copying CODE doesn't mean not copying ANYTHING.
>
>
> What, tangibly, was copied? An idea? It's a typical case of claiming
> ownership of something intangible. MS did settle but not *lose* the
> case.
Code isn't tangible, you idiot.

And Microsoft settled for 7% of the annual net income at the time.

You don't spend 9 figures to avoid a lawsuit you'd win.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>> Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.
>>>>
>>>> That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's
>>>> unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible.
>>>
>>> Not copying CODE doesn't mean not copying ANYTHING.
>>
>> What, tangibly, was copied? An idea? It's a typical case of claiming
>> ownership of something intangible. MS did settle but not *lose* the
>> case.
>Code isn't tangible, you idiot.

Uh, it is.

>And Microsoft settled for 7% of the annual net income at the time.
>
>You don't spend 9 figures to avoid a lawsuit you'd win.

Sure you do if winning would be a distraction/PITA.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-06 16:35, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's
>>>>> unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Not copying CODE doesn't mean not copying ANYTHING.
>>>
>>> What, tangibly, was copied? An idea? It's a typical case of claiming
>>> ownership of something intangible. MS did settle but not *lose* the
>>> case.
>> Code isn't tangible, you idiot.
>
>
> Uh, it is.

No. It is not:

'tangible | ˈtanjəb(ə)l |
adjective
perceptible by touch: the atmosphere of neglect and abandonment was
almost tangible.'

>
>
>> And Microsoft settled for 7% of the annual net income at the time.
>>
>> You don't spend 9 figures to avoid a lawsuit you'd win.
>
>
> Sure you do if winning would be a distraction/PITA.

No. You really don't.

One hundred MILLION dollars.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's
>>>>>> unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not copying CODE doesn't mean not copying ANYTHING.
>>>>
>>>> What, tangibly, was copied? An idea? It's a typical case of claiming
>>>> ownership of something intangible. MS did settle but not *lose* the
>>>> case.
>>> Code isn't tangible, you idiot.
>>
>> Uh, it is.
>
>No. It is not:
>
>'tangible | ?tanj?b(?)l |
>adjective
>perceptible by touch: the atmosphere of neglect and abandonment was
>almost tangible.'

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangible

2: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind

>>> And Microsoft settled for 7% of the annual net income at the time.
>>>
>>> You don't spend 9 figures to avoid a lawsuit you'd win.
>>
>> Sure you do if winning would be a distraction/PITA.
>
>No. You really don't.
>
>One hundred MILLION dollars.

They could afford it.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-06 16:54, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's
>>>>>>> unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not copying CODE doesn't mean not copying ANYTHING.
>>>>>
>>>>> What, tangibly, was copied? An idea? It's a typical case of claiming
>>>>> ownership of something intangible. MS did settle but not *lose* the
>>>>> case.
>>>> Code isn't tangible, you idiot.
>>>
>>> Uh, it is.
>>
>> No. It is not:
>>
>> 'tangible | ?tanj?b(?)l |
>> adjective
>> perceptible by touch: the atmosphere of neglect and abandonment was
>> almost tangible.'
>
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangible
>
> 2: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind

Good!

And you're claiming that architectures and designs and protocols can't
be "precisely identifed"?

>
>
>>>> And Microsoft settled for 7% of the annual net income at the time.
>>>>
>>>> You don't spend 9 figures to avoid a lawsuit you'd win.
>>>
>>> Sure you do if winning would be a distraction/PITA.
>>
>> No. You really don't.
>>
>> One hundred MILLION dollars.
>
>
> They could afford it.
And they could have afforded the lawyers more easily.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's
>>>>>>>> unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not copying CODE doesn't mean not copying ANYTHING.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What, tangibly, was copied? An idea? It's a typical case of claiming
>>>>>> ownership of something intangible. MS did settle but not *lose* the
>>>>>> case.
>>>>> Code isn't tangible, you idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Uh, it is.
>>>
>>> No. It is not:
>>>
>>> 'tangible | ?tanj?b(?)l |
>>> adjective
>>> perceptible by touch: the atmosphere of neglect and abandonment was
>>> almost tangible.'
>>
>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangible
>>
>> 2: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind
>
>Good!
>
>And you're claiming that architectures and designs and protocols can't
>be "precisely identifed"?

They never were in this case.

>>>>> And Microsoft settled for 7% of the annual net income at the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't spend 9 figures to avoid a lawsuit you'd win.
>>>>
>>>> Sure you do if winning would be a distraction/PITA.
>>>
>>> No. You really don't.
>>>
>>> One hundred MILLION dollars.
>>
>> They could afford it.
>And they could have afforded the lawyers more easily.

How is that easier?

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-06 17:09, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> Windows NT copied the design and architecture of VMS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's not a contradiction of my claim. They didn't copy code. It's
>>>>>>>>> unlikely DEC would prove anything infringing, in fact impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not copying CODE doesn't mean not copying ANYTHING.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What, tangibly, was copied? An idea? It's a typical case of claiming
>>>>>>> ownership of something intangible. MS did settle but not *lose* the
>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>> Code isn't tangible, you idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, it is.
>>>>
>>>> No. It is not:
>>>>
>>>> 'tangible | ?tanj?b(?)l |
>>>> adjective
>>>> perceptible by touch: the atmosphere of neglect and abandonment was
>>>> almost tangible.'
>>>
>>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangible
>>>
>>> 2: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind
>>
>> Good!
>>
>> And you're claiming that architectures and designs and protocols can't
>> be "precisely identifed"?
>
>
> They never were in this case.

You were present for this, were you?

You think that the architecture--the data structures, the communication
protocols, etc....

....you think that all was written down?

You think that they just sat down and started coding?