3014
Comments (220)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
-4
Mashiki -4 points ago +2 / -6

All bill had to do was transfer something that already existed and modify basic code.

Hehaha. Yeah, no. If you're reverse engineering something, your plan is a good way of making sure you get sued into the fucking ground even if you've got half the lawyers backing you. And I say that as someone who has legally reverse engineered hardware.

2
HypnoToad00 2 points ago +2 / -0

He had connections in courts to speed up cases and the most expensive lawyers suing people for him before he even got super wealthy. Why would IBM sue him if they were in on it. Anyone that he did rip off that was smaller than IBM didnt have the money or connections to contend with him in court. Gates steamrolled everyone and anything that challenged him. Thats shows how elite Gates was before he even got the steamroller started.

0
Mashiki 0 points ago +1 / -1

Huh. So when IBM tried to sue him over being part of the people involved in deciphering their BIOS system, they were in on it? And when they got caught with someone else's code in DOS 1, 2 and 3, and later on in DOS5 and with doublespace, they got away free? Oh wait, he didn't. He and his company got nailed to the wall and paid out hundreds of millions to the original owners of said code...

Huh...sure looks like he got away free with that.

1
FireannDireach 1 point ago +1 / -0

The laws governing that didn't exist back then.

1
Mashiki 1 point ago +1 / -0

The laws regarding reverse engineering? You bet your ass they existed back then.

1
HowWeGotHere 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's what's a white label is my friend.

1
NZbacon 1 point ago +1 / -0

There are no legal repercussions to reverse engineering anything.

It's what you do after that which matters.

1
Mashiki 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sure there is. Go ask the poor bastards who decided to pull the OTF encryption engine out of DVD drives how well that worked out for them.