Originally posted by: JediSage

I'm confused. Are you classifying the underlying code that makes up the OS as a language? Or are you talking about the OS as a whole as a language? I think Windows is written in C and assembler for the most part. Sorry if I sound dense I'm just not following you. I mean, DOS was a looooong time ago, and it would be hard to say that they're STILL profiting from it in a technical sense. I guess I just don't see what the problem is with patenting a programming language.

First, don't consider me an expert on operating systems or software programming. I just know that the copyrighted, source code for DOS was very important to solidifying Microsoft's dominance. Even Windows 95/98/ME all sort of ran on top of DOS as a boot loader. However having a patent on the source code works, the basic Windows API (heh, gogo wikipedia!) that the most popular PC programs used to run on computers was then hard to emulate or reproduce (at least for average PC customers like myself). That means I basically had to buy a Microsoft system whether or not I wanted its unreliable environment, one-size-fits-all add-ons, or other crap. Sure, Microsoft did stray from DOS with NT, XP, and now "Vista" but its such a dominant company now that they don't have to worry so much about losing the top position in the market. (I also remember something about how the complexity of Windows and the way that Microsoft had all the secrets to keep each new version working with older software [even when it was messy software] helped ensure that the competition could not run the same programs as easily.)

As for the GUI, it was Xerox's mistake to give away its hard work. Its not like Steve Jobs snuck into their facilities and stole something that Xerox was trying to keep private. They allowed their ideas to be seen and he simply took them because they were really good. I see no highly aggressive business tactic there.