But, the really complete collection would also have to have a copy of the Delrina "Death Toasters"? screensaver, in which Opus and Bill are shooting down winged toasters. Does anybody have a good screenshot of that? In 1993, Berkeley Systems sued Delrina over copyright infringement, claiming ownership of the idea of flying toasters. In MY opinion (IANAL), the judge failed to adequately understand that in a PARODY, such showing of a copyrighted image would be "fair-use". In addition, Delrina had failed to adequately research it, as a simple introduction into evidence of Jefferson Airplane's "Thirty Seconds Over Winterland" album cover (1973) would have completely destroyed Berkeley System's claim to IP ownership of the idea and image of flying toasters. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/ThirtySecondsOverWinterland.j… Delrina, while disagreeing with the ruling, agreed to comply, and re-released their screensaver with toasters with helicopter rotors, instead of wings. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/OpusShootingToastersWithHelic… The next year, (1994), Jefferson Starship attempted to sue Berkeley Systems over the same issue, but lost because they had not trademarked the image prior to Berkeley Systems use. Trademarking prior to use would have taken priority over Berkeley System's [diseng3enuous?] claim that they had never seen the album cover. In comparison (cf.), consider: Hercules (Jenkins?) made [minor?] modifications to the design of the IBM Monochrome board, to add graphics capability (720x348? monochrome). But then, multitudinous generic copies appeared. hercules devoted a MAJOR portion of their advertising towards attacking those clones, with with Comdex "Clone Smasher" tchotchkes, and even ads implying that generic clones of the Hercules board would destroy your [valuable/expensive] PC. In the 1980s, it was generally accepted that software copyright applied only to the code in the software, NOT to the user interface nor screen images. Hence imitation Puck-man (renamed to Pac-man for the USA market over concernes that people would deface the 'P' into an 'F') programs. Lotus V Paperback (1992) changed all that, with the idea that having the same menus, in the same sequence was infringing, and opening the concept of "look and feel" IP. If Adam Osborne were to have bought up ANY of the pieces of Visicorp (available for as little as $10K!), then Lotus would not have prevailed, since Lotus could hardly argue that their look and feel wasn't based entirely on Visicalc. Paterson's/Seattle Computer Product's Q-DOS (which later became 86-DOS, MS-DOS, and PC-DOS) was deliberately a "place-holder" for anticipated CP/M, and deliberately matched the user-interface and system calls of CP/M. That was generally considered legal at the time, and Digital Research did not sue - Gary Kildall was not litigious, and believed that the market would sort it out. What they DID get was an agreement by IBM to ALSO market CP/M-86, although $400 V $40 did not help the market to "sort it out". (claims that there is DRI code in MS-DOS seem to be totally bogus, nobody can actually SHOW it - unlike the hidden Randy Cook copyright message that can be brought up in early versions of APR-DOS/NEWDOS, and RS changed "Randy Cook" to "Tandy Corp" in later versions of TRS-DOS) When DRI released DR-DOS, there were rumblings of possible legal action! But the spectre of DRI demonstrating the CP/M heritage of MS-DOS squashed those. In fact, many believe that Novell's purchase of the remnants of DRI was explicitly to get rights to that MS-DOS "get out of jail free" IP. MAC-OS had undeniable roots in Xerox, but that didn't stop Apple from going after DRI GEM, Atari?, Amiga?, and Windoze. And, what about further developments when there WAS a legal agreement of sharing? When Microsoft bought QDOS/86-DOS from Seattle Computer Products, SCP was left with a non-exclusive right to continue to sell the OS! Does that include newer versions? Some said, "YES!", and the fact that incompetent lawyers did not include THAT issue left it up to future interpretation. When SCP was on the rocks, there were a few BIG companies interested in purchasing it for the IP, such as AT&T. Imagine the value of a royaltee-free license to MS-DOS! In an uncharactersitically intelligent move, Microsoft jumped in and made a generous purchase of SCP, to take it back off of the market. In an almost identical legal issue, when Apple decided that Windoze was infringing on the look and feel of MAC-OS, it came to light that Apple and Microsoft had had an IP sharing agreement of Word V MAC-OS! Again, it had not been clarified in the deal whether that included bug-fixes, upgrades, newer releases. Was Windoze non-infringing because of that? Or just the TILED windows of 1.x/2.x? And, just how much of an idea can be considered IP? Did Osama Bin Laden "steal the idea" from the 1980s version of "Flight Simulator" (fly a plane, AND MAYBE CRASH, between the twin towers!) -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com http://www.xenosoft.com/FPUIB

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014, Eric Smith wrote: The price differential, as well as the 6? month wait after PC-DOS before CP/M-86 became available, certainly sorted it out, and did not "sort it out" in the way that Gary Kildall had anticipated. (hence my quotation marks around "sort it out") In the early days, most people assumed that MS-DOS/PC-DOS was still just a placeholder, and that CP/M-86 would ultimately dominate the field. But, as time dragged on, and more and more people used MS-DOS/PC-DOS "while waiting for CP/M", the outcome shifted. When CP/M-86 finally became available, the price differential "delayed" and prevented the anticipated changeover. Even amongst people who still considered CP/M-86 to be the ultimate standard, it became clear that Microsoft had too much of a lead. BTW, I have heard mutiple, conflicting explanations for the price differential, ranging from short-sighted arrogance by DRI, to a claim that IBM had set the high price over objections from DRI. ". . .and when Gary flew his plane to Oakland right when IBM was scheduled to come a'calling, it was important legitimate business, since delivering those papers to Godbout shouldn't simple be entrusted to a courier" There are, of course, conflicting accounts of that great culture clash. I made it a point to stand, in shorts and a T-shirt, in an upstairs window at Lighthouse St, and imagine what it must have looked like to see the phalanx of suits coming up the walk - "are those businessmen like that! The IBM contingent were correspondingly shocked by the attire, bicycles, surfboards, and couldn't really accept DRI as being a business to be taken seriously. Historical accuracy is difficult if not impossible. Fictionalizations destroy public perceptions of events, such as "Pirates Of The Valley" (1999), wherein Microsoft cold-called IBM to sell them on the need for an OS! In THAT fictional Apple2 -> PC -> Mac "reality", CP/M and DRI never even existed! -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com http://www.xenosoft.com/FPUIB