Talk:Stac Electronics: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:23, 29 September 2010

Settlement details

I'd appreciate any correction to my estimate of the settlement details. Microsoft ended up saying in its 1994 10-K that it recorded a net pretax charge of $90 million to settle the Stac patent litigation. Elsewhere I have read that Microsoft invested $39.9 million in Stac, hence my claim in the article that there was a $39.9 million investment and a $50 million payment. Tempshill 18:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was article in Computer Reseller News on 27 JUN 94 ("Microsoft to pay $83M to settle Stac compression suit"). But embedded in an Inc. magazine article, "Patent Fending", the net payouts were $39.9M USD and $43M USD, respectively. Given INC's reputation, this is probably accurate. The other 7M USD probably went to bonuses and salaries in Microsoft's legal department for ducking the original $120M USD award! :-) JimScott 23:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

doubling

was stacker better than doublespace/drivespace or was doubling and often overoptimisic estimate? Plugwash 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked for Tech Support for Stacker (WAY back in 1991/92) I was under the impression that Stacker was more stable than DoubleSpace. Easier to fix if something went wrong also. Compression only really worked on Non-Graphics/Video files. In other words, it could compress a document/text/exe/com/sys file pretty good, but could not further compress graphics or video files because they are already about as compressed as could be (at that time). So these types of files seemed to take "twice" as much space on a stacked drive. Doc

External References

The external reference to http://web.archive.org/web/20051214104645/http://www.altiris.com/previo/ is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodrigoValin (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit Detail

One detail I heard about was that not only did MS steal the doubling software, they left the Stac copyright notice in the source code. Anyone have any confirmation of that? Jokem (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 was stacker better than doublespace/drivespace or was doubling and often overoptimisic estimate? [[User:Plugwash|Plugwash]] 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
+Having worked for Tech Support for Stacker (WAY back in 1991/92) I was under the impression that Stacker was more stable than DoubleSpace. Easier to fix if something went wrong also. Compression only really worked on Non-Graphics/Video files. In other words, it could compress a document/text/exe/com/sys file pretty good, but could not further compress graphics or video files because they are already about as compressed as could be (at that time). So these types of files seemed to take "twice" as much space on a stacked drive. Doc
 == External References ==