Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!ahmcs!alan
From: alan@ahmcs.uucp (Alan Mintz)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Judge reverses ruling
Summary: Not to bash dBase, but...
Keywords: dBASE IV, Ashton-Tate
Message-ID: <182@ahmcs.uucp>
Date: 26 Apr 91 21:03:41 GMT
References: <1991Apr24.160831.9828@dbase.A-T.COM>
Organization: Micro-Quick Systems, Inc.
Lines: 27

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
> therefore continue.  Our CEO, Bill Lyons (the guy who took over from
> the guy who brought you dBASE IV 1.0 before its time and who sued
> Fox in the first place) is quoted in the Wall Street Journal to
> the effect that we should now settle with Fox and get on with competing
> in the marketplace, not the courts.

Now I could be wrong, but I doubt you'll find many people willing to cheer
with you...

I find myself in a position of HAVING to convert a Fox application to 
dBase IV because it needs to run on VMS. Thank <insert deity here> for
Step IVward, which takes care of the change in array syntax (when was the last
time you saw a high-level langauge compiler or interpreter change a primary
syntax rule ?).

It sure is a pain to try and come up with substitutes for things that just
aren't in dBase IV like filtered indices, ALL those SYS functions (only some
of which have similar equivalents), etc.

I have little sympathy for a company that deliberately releases a product that
doesn't have features that competing products have had for years. This suit,
from the beginning, seems like nothing but sour grapes.
-- 
< Alan H. Mintz  | alan@mq.com | ...!uunet!ahmcs!alan >