Author Topic: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?  (Read 13938 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline limitgov

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
Alex Jones claimed IBM started Microsoft to avoid anti-trust laws....he said something like "yeah, and now its coming out that IBM started Microsoft to avoid anti-trust laws"....

WTF, Alex?
I haven't seen any evidence for that anywhere.  And Bill Gates tricking IBM to let him own the operating system that he was going to put on their computers has become a legend in the IT world.

Does anyone have a shred of evidence to back this up?

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2008, 10:19:48 am »
Examine the story again . . .

When the deal was signed it broke IBM policy, not a trivial action.

Give it some more thought before regurgitating the myth.


Offline limitgov

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2008, 10:21:55 am »
Examine the story again . . .

When the deal was signed it broke IBM policy, not a trivial action.

Give it some more thought before regurgitating the myth.



Where s there evidence that letting Microsoft maintain ownership was a policy at IBM?

2nd, that is not evidence that Microsoft was setup by IBM.  Not even anywhere close to evidence.

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2008, 10:31:50 am »
IT HAPPEND !!!!!

(1) They broke a long standing IBM policy
OR
(2) IBM owns Windows

Which is fact and which is fiction >?


Offline limitgov

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2008, 11:07:51 am »
IT HAPPEND !!!!!

(1) They broke a long standing IBM policy
OR
(2) IBM owns Windows

Which is fact and which is fiction >?



Come on, at least pretend you need evidence to believe this.
There's no evidence of this policy and even if there was thats not even close to evidence that IBM owns them.

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2008, 11:50:28 am »
Come on, at least pretend you need evidence to believe this.
There's no evidence of this policy and even if there was thats not even close to evidence that IBM owns them.

Staw Man !

Perhaps you miss read my post ?


Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2008, 12:31:19 pm »
Does anyone have the recording of AJ?

This is very interesting indeed and would explain a lot of the BS surrounding the sudden Windows rise to power, the creation of a monopoly under the pretense of an "open system," and so many other things.

Please someone post the actual discussion.

Thanks
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2008, 12:38:57 pm »
oh dear, I cant spell Strawman...

must be the fluoride in the koolaide

Offline gEEk squad

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,000
  • You're World Delivered... to the NSA
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #8 on: September 06, 2008, 01:05:24 pm »
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm

Read the article posted above, then re-read these two paragraphs and use some critical thinking.

Quote
IBM tried to contact Kildall for a meeting, executives met with Mrs. Kildall who refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement. IBM soon returned to Bill Gates and gave Microsoft the contract to write the new operating system, one that would eventually wipe Kildall's CP/M out of common use.

Quote
Gates then talked IBM into letting Microsoft retain the rights, to market MS DOS separate from the IBM PC project, Gates proceeded to make a fortune from the licensing of MS-DOS.

Why would IBM let Gates keep the rights unless it was in their best interest to do so? Gates is a relative nobody and doesn't have any leverage to do such a thing in 1981. What were the terms of the non-disclosure agreement that Kildall wouldn't sign? I'm guessing the same type of agreement was made with Gates.

IBM and the Gates family has a long tradition of eugenics. It was a match made in heaven.

There is no smoking gun proof of what Alex says, but the version he talks about makes more sense than the official story.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2008, 01:17:29 pm »
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm

Read the article posted above, then re-read these two paragraphs and use some critical thinking.

Why would IBM let Gates keep the rights unless it was in their best interest to do so? Gates is a relative nobody and doesn't have any leverage to do such a thing in 1981. What were the terms of the non-disclosure agreement that Kildall wouldn't sign? I'm guessing the same type of agreement was made with Gates.

IBM and the Gates family has a long tradition of eugenics. It was a match made in heaven.

There is no smoking gun proof of what Alex says, but the version he talks about makes more sense than the official story.

for over 25 years everyone knew some bullshit was going on with the entire MS-DOS / IBM controversy.  Since when does IBM simply allow a direct competitor to take away 80% of market share. WTF?  I knew something was BS about this.

Learn about IBM tattooing all concentration camp dwellers into the eugenics program. Learn about IBM and the third reich.

They are part of a big club, and you and I are not in the big club.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2008, 01:29:31 pm »
Got to agree with the two posts above.

My problem is that when ever I try to tell anyone about IBM and the Deathcamps they think I am on crack or summat. Wereas in fact I first heard about this in the esteemed publication of the establishement, The Sunday Times about 20 years ago.




Damascus

  • Guest
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2008, 01:55:13 pm »
I have heard a lot of things on this subject. I'm still having trouble trying to vet some of it, but here it goes.

1.) The gates family had many prominent relatives in IBM. So the DOS deal was already in the bag and Gates just had to go through the motions.

2.) Gates had a 1 million dollar trust fund, was a business major, and went to a high school that had a $5,000 tuition. This would indicate he was VERY well connected already and thus have nothing to worry about while starting out or collaborating.

3.) Gates stole the idea for the windows GUI while developing the GUI for apple, which in-turn stole the idea from Palo Alto Research Center. The IBM GUI (OS/2)never took off (because they took to long to bring it to market) but some still considered it to be more stable. This would suggest that IBM would have more of an interest in the windows platform now that they could not promote their own OS/2.

4.) It is also well known that almost all company's are inter-connected at the higher levels, with CEO's sitting on each others board of directors. This could mean that while not technically being a front, the stock and direction of each company could Heavily influence the other.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #12 on: September 06, 2008, 01:58:01 pm »
Got to agree with the two posts above.

My problem is that when ever I try to tell anyone about IBM and the Deathcamps they think I am on crack or summat. Wereas in fact I first heard about this in the esteemed publication of the establishement, The Sunday Times about 20 years ago.

For your sheeple friends:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/27/print/main504730.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jun2001/ibm-j27.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/03/18/reviews/010318.18schoent.html

http://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Edwin-Black/dp/0751531995
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline national732

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 627
  • Wake up call...the republic has been stolen.
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #13 on: September 06, 2008, 02:10:21 pm »
   I disagree that Gates was a "nobody".  I think he was in the right place at the right time, realized it, and brokered a deal.
Large corporations use front companies everyday.  At the time that Microsoft was really taking off the country was in the process
of divesting probably one of the largest telecom companies on the planet, so I could see IBM's incentive to do this.
Do you have enough food on hand to feed your family for a year?

" The two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shift in policy."
                  - Carroll Quigley

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #14 on: September 06, 2008, 02:19:32 pm »
Well they sell us the idea that he was a poor but bright kid.

Gates is nothing more than a ruthless buisness man, he never invented squat.

Offline CaptBebops

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #15 on: September 06, 2008, 02:43:46 pm »
There are some good books on the subject of Microsoft and the development of Windows.  David Cutler who came to Microsoft from DEC with extensive OS development background built them a solid Windows NT system and then Microsoft pissed him off when they required the system be backward compatible with current Windows 16-bit applications.  There was a book on this which I have somewhere in my numerous boxes.  ;D  And it is well worth a read if you can locate a copy somewhere.

I also have some friends who worked deep within the bowels of Microsoft and have some good war stories to tell.  You do all know that Vista is really version 2 since the original project was scrubbed and started over again?  One of Microsoft's problems is weak management.  They'll hire "geniuses" who they can't manage and have to do it "their way" and wind up screwing things up.  Do some of you remember a few years back when Microsoft stopped development for a while and had everyone combing through Windows code for bugs and security problems?  My friends told me they found some good ones like routines intended for 32-bit Windows that were masking and only returning 16-bit pointers.  :D

Gate's story is really one of serendipity.  He was really in the right place at the right time and would be a relative unknown had Gary Kildall had not been out flying his plane when he was supposed to have a meeting with IBM as they were interested in his OS.

At work over 10 years ago I had meetings with IBM on OS/2 (or half-OS as we called it).  We had a OS/2 beta computer in the office but no one wanted to play with it because it was so slow.  I went to a meeting for game developers where only two people from the game industry showed up and I was one of them.  IBM was VERY embarrassed to say the least.   :D

I think the OS war is over and Linux has won.  Microsoft's Silverlight is even supposed to run on Linux.  Both IBM and HP decided the war years ago when they started supporting Linux and shipping server machines with Linux.  It is simply impossible even with all their money for Microsoft to get enough highly qualified eyes on Windows to match those on Linux.  And then there is the economic issue too.  Governments don't want to pay for Windows so they are going Linux too.  Most CE devices like BluRay players are really Linux boxes (just note GNU license in the manuals).

It takes up to 5 minutes before I can use either my XP or Vista machines from boot.  My Ubuntu machine is ready in 1 minute and my Eee PC in 30 seconds with Xandros and ASUS is working on an instant boot version for that machine.  Who wants to use a machine that takes so long to book up and is somewhat tricky even for a computer professional to reconfigure so it doesn't take so long.


 

wvoutlaw2002

  • Guest
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #16 on: September 06, 2008, 09:36:29 pm »
   I disagree that Gates was a "nobody".  I think he was in the right place at the right time, realized it, and brokered a deal.
Large corporations use front companies everyday.  At the time that Microsoft was really taking off the country was in the process
of divesting probably one of the largest telecom companies on the planet, so I could see IBM's incentive to do this.

I did some reading and found out that Gates actually suggested to Jack Tramiel that Windows be made the official operating system of the Atari ST, but Tramiel rebuffed his offer when Gates told him it would take two years to port Windows to the ST platform. For those who don't know, the Atari ST was based on the Motorola 68000 CPU and was quite successful with musicians because of its built-in MIDI ports, but as with most home computers back then, the Atari ST was primarily used as a glorified video game system, and that combined with the ineptitude of Atari management (especially Sam Tramiel) ended up sinking Atari's computer business. The same fate also happened to the Commodore Amiga computer system. It was primarily used for video games as well. And after the demise of the Amiga and ST, Commodore and Atari tried to enter - re-enter, in Atari's case - the video game market for a couple years before finally going out of business.

It makes me wonder how different the computer market would be if Tramiel had allowed Windows to be ported to the ST and eventually be made the default operating system. Would Microsoft have bought out Atari from Tramiel?

Offline StemCell

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #17 on: September 06, 2008, 09:38:19 pm »
In April 1970 IBM introduced an office copying machine, giving Xerox its first real competition. IBM's machine was not as fast or as sophisticated as the Xerox copiers, but it was well built and was backed by IBM's reputation. Xerox responded with a suit charging IBM with patent infringement. The dispute was settled in 1978 when IBM paid Xerox $25 million. Meanwhile, Xerox itself became a defendant in several antitrust violation investigations, including a lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission. Distracted from its market by legal battles, Xerox lost its lead in the industry when Kodak came out with a more sophisticated copier. IBM and Kodak followed a strategy similar to that of Xerox, leasing their machines and attracting many large accounts on which Xerox depended.

The GUI had its roots in the 1950s but was not developed until the 1970s when a group at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) developed the Alto, a GUI-based computer. The Alto was the size of a large desk, and Xerox believed it unmarketable. Jobs took a tour of
The original 1981 arrangement between IBM and Microsoft was that Microsoft would provide the base product and that both firms would work on developing different parts of it into a more powerful and robust system, and then share the resultant code. MS-DOS and PC-DOS were to be marketed separately: IBM selling to itself for the IBM PC, and Microsoft selling to the open market. However, at no time did IBM acquire the ownership of the source code of the operating system for its own PCs.

PARC in 1979, and saw the future of personal computing in the Alto. Although much of the Interface of both the Lisa and the Mac was based (at least intellectually) heavily on the work done at PARC, and many of the engineers there later left to join Apple, much of the Mac OS was written before Job's visit to PARC. When Jobs accused Bill Gates of Microsoft of stealing the GUI from Apple and using it in Windows 1.0, Gates fired back:

No, Steve, I think its more like we both have a rich neighbor named Xerox, and you broke in to steal the TV set, and you found out I'd been there first, and you said. "Hey that's no fair! I wanted to steal the TV set!

The fact that both Apple and Microsoft had gotten the idea of the GUI from Xerox put a major dent in Apple's lawsuit against Microsoft over the GUI several years later. Although much of The Mac OS is original, it was similar enough to the old Alto GUI to make a "look and feel" suit against Microsoft dubious.

Even though the Star product failed to succeed in the marketplace, it raised expectations and laid important groundwork for the computers of today. Many of the innovations behind the Star, such as WYSIWYG editing, Ethernet, and network services such as Directory, Print, File, and internetwork routing have become commonplace in computers of today.

A trip to Xerox PARC by Apple Computer's Steve Jobs in 1979 led to the graphical user interface and mouse being integrated into the Apple Lisa and, later, the first Macintosh.[6] Steve Jobs was shown the Smalltalk-80 programming environment, networking and most importantly the WYSIWYG, mouse-driven GUI interface provided by the Alto. Members of the Apple Lisa engineering team saw Star at its introduction at the National Computer Conference (NCC '81) and returned to Cupertino where they converted their desktop manager to an icon-based interface modeled on the Star.[7] The initial Macintosh interface was a simplified version of the Lisa interface (i.e., single-tasking), supporting only a single floppy drive instead of the hard drive of the Lisa (and Star).

Star, Viewpoint and GlobalView were the first commercial computing environments to offer support for most natural languages, including full-featured word processing, leading to their adoption by the Voice of America and other United States foreign affairs agencies as well as a number of multinational corporations. [8]

The list of products that were inspired or influenced by the user interface of the Star include the Apple Lisa, Apple's Macintosh, GEM from Digital Research (the DR-DOS company), Microsoft Windows, Atari ST, BTRON from TRON Project, Commodore's Amiga, Elixir Desktop, Metaphor Computer Systems, Interleaf, Microsoft OS/2, OPEN LOOK (co-developed by Xerox), SunOS, KDE, Ventura Publisher and NEXTSTEP[9]. Adobe Systems PostScript was based on InterPress. Ethernet was further refined by 3Com, and has become the standard networking protocol.

Some people feel that Apple, Microsoft, and others plagiarized the GUI and other innovations from the Xerox Star, and believe that Xerox didn't properly protect its intellectual property. The truth is more complicated. Many patent disclosures were in fact submitted for the innovations in the Star; however, at the time the 1975 Xerox Consent Decree, an FTC antitrust action, placed restrictions on what the company was able to patent.[10] In addition, when the Star disclosures were being prepared, the Xerox patent attorneys were busy with several other new technologies such as laser printing. Finally, patents on software, particularly those relating to user interfaces, were an untested legal area at that time.

Xerox did go to trial to protect the Star user interface. In 1989, after Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement of its Macintosh user interface in Windows, Xerox filed a similar lawsuit against Apple; however, it was thrown out because a three year statute of limitations had passed. (Apple eventually lost its lawsuit in 1994, losing all claims to the user interface.)


EvadingGrid

  • Guest
I presume the case is now closed . . .

There are threads on the board that detail the Gates family and its connections.


blackwater

  • Guest
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #19 on: August 08, 2010, 06:07:14 pm »
Pretty much all "establishment" history is [email protected]#T....

That's a fact... Jack....

 ;)

wvoutlaw2002

  • Guest
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2010, 07:01:12 pm »
It takes up to 5 minutes before I can use either my XP or Vista machines from boot.  My Ubuntu machine is ready in 1 minute and my Eee PC in 30 seconds with Xandros and ASUS is working on an instant boot version for that machine.  Who wants to use a machine that takes so long to book up and is somewhat tricky even for a computer professional to reconfigure so it doesn't take so long.

Xandros is a seriously mismanaged company. Their flagship product - Xandros Desktop - hasn't had a new release for almost FOUR YEARS. They bought their main competition Linspire pretty much for the CNR (Click N Run) software service as well as the potential to use Freespire as a new "community" distro like how Redhat has Fedora and Novell has openSUSE. Well, the CNR Warehouse has been down for at least 3 months, and a website claims that Xandros has discontinued Freespire. And Asus has pretty much given up on Xandros on the EeePC. Even though Canonical Software is now run by a former defense contractor VP, they are actually putting out a decent product and keeping its "app center" open and running. I now run Ubuntu Lucid Netbook Edition on my netbook...although I do have a Windows Tiny 7 partition on there just to sync music and ringtones and pics to my phone (a Razzle). I'm just waiting to see if the Ubuntu Tablet Edition materializes. Imagine having a free Alex Jones Show app in the Ubuntu App Centre. Now I'm seriously tempted to revive the Infowars OS. ;D

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2010, 07:19:47 pm »
I've believed this for quite some time.  I think AJ is right on the money.  They set that little upper-middle class twit up -- made him a billionaire to be their corporate beard -- maybe, not cheap, but effective and a tried and true method.  Over the decades he has proved himself completely trustworthy, I am sure, from their point-of-view.

At that level, as with all of the other old money families, that is how it is done.  Look at how so many big names in America have been agents more or less of the Rothschild family:  Morgan, Rockefeller, Warburg, Schiff etc.

He is merely one of the agents of IBM (Burroughs).  It is a page right out of the elite playbook.  As old as time.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Microsoft was really a Front for IBM to Avoid Anti-trust Laws? Really?
« Reply #22 on: August 08, 2010, 07:56:16 pm »
Bill Gates got rich off government contracts via IBM