Vote for Uri Geller as fraud of the century?

[The idea]

Who was the century's worst scammer, con artist, media manipulator, grifter, liar or charlatan?

Uri Geller?

Charles Ponzi?

Here's the link:

http://www.time.com/time/time100/phonies/index_orig.html

Lots of the options are ridiculous. For example:

Marlboro Man (counts as a "who"?)
Edward Teller (we all know H-bombs are a hoax)

Kenneth Starr
Linda Tripp (If secretly recording phone conversations is the fraud of the century...)
Donald Trump (casino customers don't always win so casino owner is a scam artist?)

[Batman Jr.]

I say Bill Gates. What innovations has his company actually introduced into the PC market? It seems his business strategy is to take other people's ideas, modify them a little bit so as not to be committing copyright infringement in such an obvious way—and these modifications are usually for the worse—and then force those other people out of the market with unscrupulous and unfair business practices.

I think IBM took his inferior clone of Gary Kildall's CP/M operating system (which he didn't even write himself; he just bought the rights to SCP DOS for $50,000) over the actual CP/M because his mom was on the board of the company.

Now, Gary Kildall, he was a real genius. To imagine that one man invented the first microprocessor DOS, the BIOS, the CD-ROM format, and preemptive multitasking among yet even more contributions of great importance to the evolution of the PC is an astonishing thought.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Gary Kildall, I didnt know about him. Yet, it makes me angry to know that the "successful genius" (according to this society) is Gates, the one who steals, lie and do questionable things to force the market go his way.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Gary Kildall, I didnt know about him. Yet, it makes me angry to know that the "successful genius" (according to this society) is Gates, the one who steals, lie and do questionable things to force the market go his way.
It is a sin that the world too often commits that we will automatically equate monetary industriousness with a more genuine, meaningful and societally beneficial resourcefulness. The selfish, unmindful allocation of wealth for an individual's own gain turns into a mark of work ethic, integrity, altruism.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
I say Bill Gates. What innovations has his company actually introduced into the PC market? It seems his business strategy is to take other people's ideas, modify them a little bit so as not to be committing copyright infringement in such an obvious way...
Ah, what? Either you're implying that Microsoft stole the source code of a competitor, changed the source, then sold the product as their own OR that you have no idea of what Copyright Law actually protects. Which one is it?
Originally posted by Batman Jr.
I think IBM took his inferior clone of Gary Kildall's CP/M operating system (which he didn't even write himself; he just bought the rights to SCP DOS for $50,000) over the actual CP/M because his mom was on the board of the company.
Firstly, Microsoft ONLY wanted to write languages for the PC, they didn't do Operating Systems. Microsoft specifically told IBM -- who didn't want to write any software for their PC because they had a history of having software projects run overtime and over budget by huge factors -- that they should buy DRI's CP/M from Gray Kildall since Microsoft were big fans of that OS. Now, your genius friend Kildall was so cocky he decided to go fly his plane at the same time he'd arranged to have a meeting with IBM at his house. Kildall's wife refused to sign any of IBM's non-disclosure agreements, so IBM walked away from him.

IBM then went back to Microsoft and told them they'd buy Microsoft's languages ONLY if Microsoft also came up with an operating system for the PC. Microsoft AGAIN protested that they weren't in the OS game, but they knew they had to find an OS or IBM would never buy their languages. IBM needed this operating system within a few months, and MS knew they'd need at least a year to build one themselves.

Microsoft heard about an OS named QDOS (Quick & Dirty Operating System) written by a single person named Tim Paterson. Microsoft told IBM they had found an OS they could modify for the PC, and AGAIN the question arose of who would actually buy it. IBM were still not interested in touching any of the software projects, so Microsoft bought QDOS for $75,000. Years later Jack Sams (head of the PC division at the time) denied speculation that Microsoft hid the source of their OS from him, he says he was told all about the software. Sams says even now that if IBM had been the purchaser of QDOS "if we'd have bought the software, we'd have just screwed it up".

When Kildall heard that Microsoft had gotten into the OS game he was furious, up until that time Microsoft and DRI had an understanding that DRI wouldn't build languages and MS wouldn't build operating systems. Kildall complained to IBM that QDOS was a rip-off of his CP/M, but it turned out Kildall just wanted IBM to offer his next version of CP/M on the PC. IBM agreed. In fact, when the PC was launched there were three opeerating systems available, all endorsed by IBM: CP/M, MS-DOS, and UCSD. Unfortunately, the new version of CP/M was delivered months late, and would cost the end user six times as much as MS-DOS. By the time DRI dropped their prices to match microsoft's, MS-DOS had already become the industry standard OS for the PC.

So, what have we learned here?

- Microsoft were happy for DRI to supply CP/M as the OS for the PC.
- Microsoft didn't even want to write an OS for the PC.
- Microsoft only supplied an OS when they were forced to by IBM.

If you want to blame anyone for Microsoft's stranglehold on the Operating System market, you should blame IBM or Gary Kildall.

Gates readily acknowledges in interviews that his company was extremely fortutious in the early days and that Microsoft were simply in the right place at the right time.

Of course, don't let any of the above stop you from continuing to peddle the old chestnut that IBM had to use Bill's software because his mommy was on the board.

[Ref: "Big Blues - The Unmaking of IBM" -- Carroll, 1994 pp17-42. Note that the events in this book are corroborated in the tome that looks at these events from the other side of the fence: "Hard Drive - Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire" -- Wallace & Erickson, 1993]

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Now, your genius friend Kildall was so cocky he decided to go fly his plane at the same time he'd arranged to have a meeting with IBM at his house. Kildall's wife refused to sign any of IBM's non-disclosure agreements, so IBM walked away from him.
The plane story is a myth, and you should know that. The truth is that Kildall felt he was entitled to royalties of a fairly significant sum given that CP/M was really the only microprocessor DOS at the time. IBM didn't want to pay him the kind of money he was asking for, so they turned to Microsoft, whereupon Microsoft submitted to them QDOS—and if you look at the architecture of the program, it's pretty straightforward as to where Paterson got his ideas from. I'm guessing why IBM of all places decided to turn to Microsoft was because of nepotism.

Now, if you actually read "Hard Drive," you would have known that Kildall himself had a contrasting story. According to him, he was in his plane, but it was because he was coming back from a business trip in San Francisco. When he got back, he claims he signed the non-disclosure agreement and actually closed a deal with Jack Sams and his associates, but then IBM turned around and stabbed him in the back and went with Microsoft.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
The plane story is a myth, and you should know that.
I don't think so, I see no reason for Sams, Estridge et al to lie about this point since they were surprisingly honest and forthcoming when discussing other, much more embarrassing stories in Carroll's book.

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
The truth is that Kildall felt he was entitled to royalties of a fairly significant sum given that CP/M was really the only microprocessor DOS at the time. IBM didn't want to pay him the kind of money he was asking for, so they turned to Microsoft...
Who's truth is this? Your last version of the truth was that IBM used Microsoft's OS only because his mommy was on the board, and I'm not sure this new version of the truth is any better.

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
...whereupon Microsoft submitted to them QDOS —and if you look at the architecture of the program, it's pretty straightforward as to where Paterson got his ideas from.
So DRI should have sued, but they didn't, I wonder why.

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
I'm guessing why IBM of all places decided to turn to Microsoft was because of nepotism.
Oh yeah, the old mommy on the IBM board bit. For her to have any influence over one of the (at the time) largest companies in the world she would have had to be a pretty big bitch. 800 pounds at least.

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Now, if you actually read "Hard Drive," you would have known that Kildall himself had a contrasting story. According to him, he was in his plane, but it was because he was coming back from a business trip in San Francisco.
Well, I did read Hard Drive, but it was perhaps five years ago. I only have the second book "Overdrive" on my bookshelf, so I can't double check the text. However, from memory the story in both Hard Drive and Big Blues was the same. Perhaps I'm misremembering.

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
When he got back, he claims he signed the non-disclosure agreement and actually closed a deal with Jack Sams and his associates, but then IBM turned around and stabbed him in the back and went with Microsoft.
This is just wrong. DRI did sign a deal with IBM, I already alluded to that but I'll repeat what I wrote above: When the PC was launched, purchasers could choose from one of THREE operating systems: CP/M, MS-DOS, and UCSD. And I'll also repeat that Microsoft recommended the CP/M OS when they were approached by IBM.

But, at the end of the day, MS-DOS was seen to be a cheap, fast, and reliable OS, so software vendors and consumers alike overwhelmingly chose Microsoft's operating system when ordering machines.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
I don't think so, I see no reason for Sams, Estridge et al to lie about this point since they were surprisingly honest and forthcoming when discussing other, much more embarrassing stories in Carroll's book.
If they actually did strike a deal with him and then backed out, they might have had some incentive to cover up such noncommittal tendencies. The problem is that only the IBM guys support this story. Dorothy McEwen, Kildall's wife, concurs with the alternative account. So does Gordon Eubanks, the founder of Symantec, who worked alongside Kildall at DRI at the time.

Another point to make is that Kildall's absence shouldn't have really affected the business dealings because Dorothy usually handled all of those sorts of things anyway, and that a story should say otherwise raises questions immediately.
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Who's truth is this? Your last version of the truth was that IBM used Microsoft's OS only because his mommy was on the board, and I'm not sure this new version of the truth is any better.
Whenever I discussed the nepotism thing, I always said "I think" and "I'm guessing." It was just simple hypothesizing. The fact that IBM didn't want to pay Kildall's royalties is the confirmable truth to which I was referring.
Originally posted by Iconoclast
So DRI should have sued, but they didn't, I wonder why.
Intellectual property law dealing with the authorship of computer software was in its nascency at the time; it had only been on the books for 3 years. Many of the fine details of what legally counted as plagiarism at the time had not been worked out. Add to that the possible financial drain that could take place in paying legal fees to go up against a behemoth like IBM with much greater resources, and it's understandable why they didn't sue. Gary's friends have also said he wasn't vindictive in the least, and that probably as well contributed to DRI's inaction.

Another interesting tidbit:

The computer journalist John C. Dvorak, in 1996, revealed a most bizarre thing about the first version of MS-DOS. In CP/M, there is an easter egg that if you type in a certain command displays Gary Kildall's name. He found that this same command displayed Kildall's name in the earliest version of MS-DOS. Had Tim Paterson carelessly copied from the source code of CP/M into SCP-DOS Kildall's "digital signature"? Perhaps if this had been caught early on, IBM, Microsoft and Paterson would have been nailed.