Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!uokmax!occrsh!abcom!mdb
From: mdb@abcom.ATT.COM (3030 )
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Judge reverses ruling
Message-ID: <2333@abcom.ATT.COM>
Date: 26 Apr 91 16:40:33 GMT
References: <73539@brunix.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T(IMS-DPO), Aurora, Colorado
Lines: 25

From article <73539@brunix.UUCP>, by pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner):
> In article <1991Apr24.160831.9828@dbase.A-T.COM>, awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) writes:
> |> Judge Hatter reversed himself yesterday and ruled that Ashton-Tate's
> |> copyright on dBASE is not invalid and that our suit against Fox can
> 
> It would be nice if you guys just admitted that Fox's software is FAR
> superior to yours, stopped marketing dBase, and endorsed Fox Software

I agree with Peter.  A-T much like IBM has for years over charged for a 
product that was weak and slow.  When the competion started to heat up
A-T ran to the judicial system instead of the development labs.

When the leading mebers of the Xbase community tried to set standards
A-T refused to sit on the committe even though they were asked several 
times to participate.  Consultants whom helped build them into the 
company we know today were sued if part of their advertising included
Dbase compatibility.

A-T used to have a good product but like many in our industry, they
sat back and counted the money instead of paying attention to the 
market.


Mike Barnes
Voice (415-224-3030)