The fall of CP/M?

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, Alan Perry wrote: Sorry! I'll try to be more careful. (and stop assuming that it is correct in whatever I reply to!) 1) It was explicitly acknowledged BY PATERSON to be a copy, although he certainly did not copy any of the internal code. In THOSE days, it would be called "a clean copy". 2) Under the current "taste and smell" level of copyright, it would indeed be considered infringing under the cutrrent INTERPRETATIONS of the law, although not by the "did they copy bytes?" interpretations at the time. Samsung did not "copy bytes" from Apple, but the courts recently ruled that the similarities are infringing. If I create a "PUCKMAN" game, using all original code, that is indistinguishable from the original in use, then under current interpretations, would that be legal? Think back to the Lotus lawsuit that sank Adam Osborne's "Paperback Software". At the time that Paterson wrote QDOS, a "clean-room" copy was considered legal, but was still acknowledged as a "copy". Under current INTERPRETATIONS of the law, it is no longer legal. The LAW wasn't what changed (although there have been some significant changes, such as the Berne Convention), it was the court interpretation. Court interpretation can be "retroactive", whereas laws can not. All that being said, what Paterson did, MAKING A COPY WITHOUT COPYING INTERNAL CODE, was considered acceptable practice at the time. Besides, Gary was not heavy into filing lawsuits; he assumed [incorrectly] that the market would "straighten it out" once both CP/M-86 and MS-DOS were being sold at the same time. As it turns out, the headstart of MS-DOS, and the price differential kept MS-DOS in the lead until it was no longer an issue. When the 5150 first came out, MOST of us said, "I'll use MS-DOS for now, and switch to CP/M-86 when it (comes out)/(comes down to a comparable price)/(starts to catch up)" MS-DOS's lead continued to grow, nk, and the expected! CP/M-86 dominance never occured.9 -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com