Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
86-DOS
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Intellectual property dispute=== When Digital Research founder [[Gary Kildall]] examined PC DOS and found that it duplicated CP/M's programming interface, he wanted to sue IBM, which at the time claimed that PC DOS was its own product. However, Digital Research's attorney did not believe that the relevant law was clear enough to sue. Nonetheless, Kildall confronted IBM and persuaded them to offer CP/M-86 with the PC in exchange for a release of liability. Controversy has continued to surround the similarity between the two systems. Perhaps the most sensational claim came from [[Jerry Pournelle]], who said that Kildall personally demonstrated to him that DOS contained CP/M code by entering a command in DOS that displayed Kildall's name,<ref name="TWIT_2006"/><ref group="nb" name="NB_Paterson_EasterEgg"/> but Pournelle never revealed the command and nobody has come forward to corroborate his story. A 2004 book about Kildall says that he used such an encrypted message to demonstrate that other manufacturers had copied CP/M, but does not say that he found the message in DOS;<ref name="Evans_2004_They_Made_America"/> instead Kildall's memoir (a source for the book) pointed to the well-known interface similarity. Paterson insists that the 86-DOS software was his original work and has denied referring to or otherwise using CP/M code while writing it.<ref name="Paterson_1994_Origins_DOS"/><ref name="Paterson_1997"/> After the 2004 book appeared, he sued the authors and publishers for [[defamation]].<ref name="USA_Today_2005_Programmer_Sues"/> The court ruled in [[summary judgment]] that no defamation had occurred, as the book's claims were opinions based on research or were not provably false.<ref name="Paterson_v_Little_2007"/>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)