 CompuNews

Windows/PC Edition	Vol. 1, No. 2	Copyright (c) 1993 by Bolt Publishing Co.

About

Information about CompuNews

Mailing and Publishing Info

In-the-News

CA-Simply Money Offer Extended

Major V.fast Standardization Breakthrough

Softkey, Wordstar, Spinnaker to Join Forces

The Data Compression War

TechLine

Data Compression: How Does It Work?

StockReport

ACAD:	AutoDesk Inc.

ADBE:	Adobe Systems Inc.

ALDC:	Aldus Corp.

CA:	Computer Associates International Inc.

CAER:	Caere Corp.

INTC:	Intel Corp.

LOTS:	Lotus Development Corp.

MNPI:	Microcom Inc.

MSFT:	Microsoft Corp.

NOVL:	Novell Inc.

QDEK:	Quarterdeck Office Systems Inc.

SKEYF:	Softkey Software Products, Inc.

STAC:	STAC Electronics

SYMC:	Symantec Corp.

WDST:	Wordstar International Inc.

PC Life

Appreciating a Good Deal


 CompuNews Info

All material in CompuNews Online (CNO) is copyright (c) 1993 by Bolt Publishing Co. and Purple Mountain Computers, Inc. unless otherwise specified.  All rights reserved.  No material may be reproduced without the express written permission of Bolt Publishing Co. (BPC) or Purple Mountain Computers, Inc. (PMC).  Opinions expressed in CNO are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of CNO, BPC, or PMC.  CompuNews, CompuNews Online, BusinessLine, StockReport, and In-the-News are trademarks of PMC.  All other trademarks belong to their respective holders.

About CompuNews Online

CompuNews Online is a bi-weekly electronic newspaper with up-to-date news and descriptive reviews of all Windows and PC based matters.  It is available on major telecommunication networks (such as CompuServe, Delphi, GEnie and NVN), as well as on local BBS's.

Users, Public Domain/Shareware organizations, and BBS Sysops are encouraged to freely distribute this publication (charges to the end user may not exceed $2 per disk) in its entirety.  You are not allowed to reprint portions of material in CNO.

How to Access CompuNews Online

CNO is published in the Windows Help file format.  Simply double click on the CompuNews icon within Windows.  Then click on the news stories you want to view.  To go back to the main menu, click on the Contents button.  For further details select How to Use Help from the Help menu.

Writing for CompuNews Online

We are always looking for writers.  The only requirement is a clear and concise writing style.  There are numerous fringe benefits that accompany writing for CNO, contact us for details.  Unsolicited articles are welcome, however, they must be your own work.

CNO Direct

You can order a subscription to CompuNews Online, which will guarantee that you receive each issue on time.  To receive CNO on a 3.5" disk via mail ($2 per issue) or via FAX ($2 per issue), send a check or money order made out to PMC to our mailing address.  You may order as many issues as you like and you may cancel your subscription at any time for a refund on the remaining issues in your subscription.  Issues will be sent as soon as they are produced.


Mailing/Publishing Information

 Mailing/Publishing Info

Publisher:	Bolt Publishing Company, a division of Purple Mountain Computers Inc.

Editor: 	Oscar S. Steele

Assistant

Editor: 	Kathleen A. McNelley

Staff

Reporters:	Reiner D. Bohlen

Bob Garsson

Jay Morton

Keith Whitton

Ed Williams

Columnist:	Alan Frayer

Correspondence and products for review may be sent to:

Mailing	PMC

Address:	15600 NE 8th Street Suite A3-412

Bellevue, WA  98008

Phone:	(206) 399-8700

GEnie:	PMC.INC

CompuServe:	72567,302

Delphi:	OSTEELE

NVN:	ODONOHUE


Ed Williams first became professionally involved in computers and EDP with his co-founding of a company called Checkfree in 1980.  He spent the next ten years working in related areas for large companies like GTE and Bank One.  Between 1989 and 1993, he was vice-president of marketing and operations for a clone computer company in California.  He headed all technical services, including hardware and software product evaluation and selection.  Presently he is a consultant for Enron Corporation, a Fortune 100 natural gas company, handling their LAN conversion and institution of Windows operating environment.  He has published articles in MicroTimes, Computer Monthly and the Orange County Business Review.


Bob Garsson is a freelance writer with many years of experience in newspapers and non-fiction writing.  He is highly familiar with many aspects of PCs and Windows.


Jay Morton provides research and consulting services to a variety of high-tech clients.  He has written commercially in various trade publications such as Billboard and Variety.  Spare-time activities include teaching a marketing-research course at a local college.


Alan Frayer is a professional writer, published in InfoWorld, the Clarion Tech Journal and Sarasota's Business Magazine.  He is also a member of InfoWorld's Review Board, as well as a certified NetWare 3.11 administrator.


Reiner D. Bohlen is a technical Writer for the Army Corps of Engineers in Champaign. He has been writing software documentation for database front ends (underground task management and air emissions management), and has contributed to couple of small circulation magazines.


Keith Whitton is an Assistant Sysop on GEnie in the Radio & Electronics RT and Consumer Electronics RT, as well as head of computer Operations for City of Barberton. He has done good bit of computer-related writing in the middle 80's.


Oscar S. Steele is a Communications major specializing in Editorial Journalism at the University of Washington.  When he isn't inundated with paperwork and work in general, he's editing CompuNews Online.  He has nine years of computing experience and has participated in publishing several computer related publications.


What is PC LIFE?

PC LIFE is a column where the author shares his opinions on the issues surrounding the PC industry and occasionally mixes in product reviews. The columns are written in an entertaining, tongue-in-cheek style, meant not only to entertain but also educate.


 Softkey, Wordstar, Spinnaker to Join Forces

by Jay Morton, Staff Reporter

TORONTO, ON, CANADA -- SoftKey Software Products Inc., WordStar International Inc, and Spinnaker Software Corp. have announced plans for a three-way merger.

A stock-swap deal this Fall will create a $140-million company to be called SoftKey Software Products International; it will be one of the world's largest consumer software companies (based on historical revenues published in the 1993 Soft-Letter 100 industry newsletter).

The new firm will start with over four million registered users of its various software products, as well as a catalog with a circulation of eleven million.  Its most popular releases are all in the business and personal productivity field: Calendar Creator, PFS: Windows Works, the American Heritage Dictionary, and KeyCAD.

Just as the SoftKey name survive the merger, so will their CEO Michael Perik, who will be CEO of the new company.  He describes the combining as "a logical trend in the industry."

"As pricing becomes a more attractive component for consumers," Perik adds, "it is not surprising to see increasing consolidation as a means to achieve significant critical mass and the operational efficiencies of reducing headcount and facilities."  The new SoftKey will realize substantial reductions in both when locations in Florida and California are closed; headquarters will be at Spinnaker's Cambridge MA base.

This merger culminates years of regroupings and refinancings, mergers and acquisitions by the players in their collective bid to survive.  Spinnaker has recently absorbed the Power Up catalog system and had previously bought the PFS line from Software Publishing.

WordStar's financial statements have been star-crossed for years, as have many efforts to acquire or merge with other software companies.  Three months ago it arranged to merge into SoftKey.  Now with Spinnaker coming into the picture, the hat trick is complete.

Copyright (c) 1993 Smith and company.

All rights reserved.


 Major V.fast Standardization Breakthrough

by Reiner_Bohlen, Staff Reporter

SAN DIEGO, CA -- During July 27-28 meetings, the V.fast Rapporteur Group of the ITU-T Study Group 14, which is responsible for the international standardization of modems, agreed on major issues that had been stalling the V.fast draft recommendation.

The new modem standard is now on track for approval at the June 1994 meeting of the V.fast Rapporteur Group (formerly CCITT).  "We've finally turned the corner in making this new standard a reality.  I would expect companies to announce true V.fast products by March 1994," said Richard Stuart, chairman of the V.fast Rapporteur Group and vice president of Technology at Penril Datability Networks.

Heralded as the last analog modem protocol, true V.fast will take a radically different approach than did its predecessors V.32, V.32bis, and V.32terbo.  True V.fast modems will be able to negotiate nearly all communications parameters at connect time.  These parameters include symbol rate, center-band frequency, data encoding scheme, transmission power, and others.  This means that V.fast modems will be extremely adaptable to line conditions and virtually guarantee the fastest possible data transmission for a given connection.

Companies represented at the July meeting include:  AT&T, Hayes Microcomputer Products, IBM, Intel, National Semiconductor, Motorola Codex, Motorola UDS, NEC Electronics, Rockwell International, Sierra Semiconductor, and U.S. Robotics.

The new standard will include many advanced techniques to achieve improved performance over the full range of possible transmission impairments.  However, the new modems will face heavy competition and they have their own technological limitations.

With top speeds of 28.8K bits/second, V.fast has generated considerable interest.  However, while two V.fast modems can theoretically communicate with each other at 28.8 kbps, they aren't likely to sustain such speeds more than 50% of connect time due to line noise, signal attenuation, and other factors.  Coupled with the price premium that such new technology commands, V.32-class or proprietary V.fast modems may not be out of the running for quite some time.

The drop below $200 for V.32 modems at 9600 bits/sec or V.32bis modems at 14.4 kbps have made these basic V.32 modem standards extremely popular for mainstream use, especially considering the built-in fax capabilities that are becoming commonplace.

For users who want faster speeds, but are unwilling to leave the standards behind, the V.32terbo modems at 16.8 or 19.2 kbps are available.  Developed by AT&T and a group of approximately twenty manufacturers, V.32terbo is an extension of the existing V.32 technology.  By extending current technology, the V.32terbo group was able to develop faster modems at an incremental cost increase, and get them to market quickly.  Moreover, since V.fast modems are likely to outpace V.32terbo modems only about 50% of the time, V.32terbo may be the most cost effective way to achieve speeds of 19.2 kbps.

For users who work in an area with high-quality phone lines and demand cutting edge communications performance, a proprietary V.fast modem might fill the void until true V.fast products are available.  Motorola and other companies have developed protocols that deliver a subset of V.fast (for approximately 24 kbps) today, and they guarantee compatibility with the true V.fast standard when available.  The only problem is that the V.fast standard, while making dramatic progress, is not complete.  Therefore, it is not certain that these proprietary V.fast modems will be compatible without significant hardware upgrades.

V.fast, with its high-speed and connect-time adaptability, is an exciting technology.  It promises to be robust, extendable, and popular (unlike the 4800 baud modem).  Is V.fast for every user?  That depends.  As with all products, users will have to examine their needs and budget.  The beauty of technology is that someday, V.fast may suit a particular user's needs.  And that user may be you.


 CA-Simply Money Offer Extended

by Keith Whitton, Staff Reporter

ISLANDIA, NY -- Computer Associates International, Inc. (CA) recently announced an extension of its offer to give Kiplinger's CA-Simply Money, a personal finance software product valued at $69.99, free to users until November 4, 1993 (a 100-day extension of its original offer).

"We're very pleased [that] we're still getting a heavy volume of calls, many as a result of word-of-mouth recommendations from people who've already received their copies,"  said CA Chairman and CEO Charles B. Wang.  The original offer was that CA would give away one million copies of the Windows finance program.

CA has informed us that the phones were so busy as a result of the June 8th, 1993 announcement, that a large number of new operators had to be hired to handle to influx of calls.  This reporter is personally aware of a needed increase, as he attempted eight times to take advantage of this offering of Kiplinger's free personal money manager, and received a busy tone on each occasion.

To take advantage of CA's special offer, users may call 1-800-FREE MONEY (1-800-373-3666) anytime through midnight, November 4th, 1993.  Computer Associates has informed us that phone lines will be open 24-hours a day, 7 days a week. The only expense will be a shipping and handling charge of $6.95.  For general questions regarding CA, users may call 800-225-5224.

According to PC Magazine, CA-Simply Money is "a surprisingly adept personal finance package."  PC World said the product's advice "is as solid and useful as that given by your banker or CPA... If you want to manage your money more effectively and track your investments, CA-Simply Money fills the bill."

According to CA, CA-Simply Money offers advice from one of the nation's most respected experts in personal finance.  Other key functions include the ability to record electronic payments, update stock portfolios by modem, and track investments and the value of home improvements.

An end user who responded to the offer said that the program is surprisingly robust and feature-rich.  The package features capabilities to print and manage checks, investments, stocks and mortgages through its Kiplinger Financial Advisor, and provides online modem support as well. A healthy selection of charting and graphing functions are available for charting and reporting duties.

However, the general layout and overall workings of this package are not very intuitive.  With the total overhaul of Microsoft's Home Products Division, of which Microsoft Money is a portion, the impending upgrade of Intuit's Quicken For Windows, and now the stellar appearance of Kiplinger's CA-Simply Money, home users of Windows now have much to look forward to in the personal finance arena.

According to CA, the company has over 7,000 employees world-wide and is the leading software company for integrated systems, database management, business applications and application development solutions.  These programs operate across a full spectrum of mainframe, midrange and desktop computers.  Founded in 1976, CA became a public company in 1981, and now serves most of the world's major business, government, research and educational organizations.


 Data Compression: How Does It Work?

by Ed Williams, Staff Reporter

The legal battle between Stac Electronics and Microsoft [see The Data Compression War, in this issue] brings to the forefront the issue of patents for data compression techniques.  A lot of us use these utilities--many millions of us, in fact--but, to most computer owners, how compression tools do what they do remains a mystery.  Given a disk drive, a piece of hardware that has real, physical limitations, how do you create extra disk space?

First, it is important to distinguish between the two types of data compression programs.  If you dial into a Bulletin Board System (BBS), you undoubtedly know of programs that use batch compression.  These are programs like Phil Katz's PKZIP and Haruyasu Yoshizaki's LHARC.  They are, in general, command-driven tools that will produce a compressed file from one or more original files.

These might also be thought of as archival programs.  They are used for economically storing data to removable media, like floppy disks, and for packaging a convenient way to transfer files via modem.

On-the-fly compression routines, in contrast, reduce and expand files in a manner that is completely invisible to the user.  Of even more importance, these real-time compression utilities also perform invisibly to DOS and Windows.

In the vernacular, both of these categories of programs use lossless data compression.  In other words, every bit of data from the original file is retained when it is decompressed, ensuring that no data is lost or changed in the process.  Producing an exact replica of the original file is essential when dealing with executable programs and important data.

For the genesis of lossless data compression, we have to thank Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv, two university professors from Israel.  In 1977, they published what is now known as the Lempel-Ziv algorithm.  An algorithm is a series of mathematically-based instructions describing a solution to a given problem.

Compression utilities based on the Lempel-Ziv algorithm search a file for repetitive characters, locate duplicates of the character string elsewhere in the file, then convert the strings to tokens, which may be only a character or two in length.  A reference "table" of the tokens is maintained and, when the compressed file is called, the process is reversed.

This sounds more simplistic than it is.  Particularly in the case of on-the-fly solutions, these utilities represent a sophisticated piece of programming.  Generally speaking, though, when Stac and Microsoft claim their proprietary patents, it means they own some perturbation of the Lempel-Ziv algorithm and have, in some unique way, incorporated it into either software or a hardware coprocessor.

To accomplish the speed needed for on-the-fly compression solutions, these utilities both depend on refinement of the basic algorithm and on using loopholes in the laws of DOS.  DOS' adamant compliance to its own rules is used to trick the operating system into relinquishing space it doesn't know it has.

Formatting a disk prepares it to accept data from DOS, which expects to see this in sectors and clusters:  fixed-length blocks of space on the disk.  Sector size is typically 512 bytes.  Each cluster holds a set number of sectors--the number may vary from one hard disk to another--and is the basic storage unit on the disk.  This system is strict and, since files don't come in lengths that are neat multiples of the size of a cluster, it leaves a significant amount of disk space unused.

For example, suppose you have two files to write to a hard drive that utilizes clusters of four sectors each:  a cluster size of 2,048 bytes.  One file is 6,140 bytes long and the other is 6,150 bytes.  At first glance, the natural assumption is that these files are nearly equivalent in size.  But they are quite different to DOS.

When the first file is written to disk, it takes almost all of three clusters (2,048 bytes x 3), leaving a surplus of only four bytes, an infinitesimal amount.  The other file, though, will slightly exceed that three-cluster size and DOS will allocate an extra cluster for its storage.  That 6,150-byte file will actually use four clusters of disk space, or 8,192 bytes.  Obviously, as files are added to a hard disk over time, this allocated but unavailable space can amount to thousands or millions of bytes of wasted storage.

On-the-fly compression utilities use device drivers to either convince DOS that an additional hard drive has been added to the system or to take the place of the existing disk interface.  The new device might appear as a virtual drive or as an added partition on the existing drive, but so long as it behaves precisely as expected by the operating system, DOS allows any reads and writes to the device despite the intrinsic formatting of the hard disk.

Data transfer to and from the new device is treated by DOS, the system BIOS, and even Windows' 32-bit access driver, like any normal DOS transaction.  Within the storage space of the device, data is compressed and decompressed by the variant of the Lempel-Ziv algorithm.  Differences in product compression efficiency and in performance speed are determined by handling of the virtual device's formatting, and by refinements in the algorithm used.

So far, we've concerned ourselves with lossless data compression.  There is another buzzword in the arena:  lossy compression.  You guessed it; in contrast to the lossless standard's devout preservation of every last byte, lossy compression purposely throws data away.  You find this technique widely used in high-end graphics applications.

The names for these technologies are rapidly becoming commonplace:  JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group), MPEG (Motion Picture Experts Group), and FIF (Fractal Image Format).  The algorithms used start out by defining redundant data, as does the Lempel-Ziv algorithm, but also make sophisticated determinations about data deemed superfluous.

Graphics files are often quite large, full of information about individual pixel color and relative placement.  Lossy algorithms employ a strategy based around a concept that some of these data are nonessential, that there is no appreciable degradation of the image when some information is discarded and replaced with pixel data that are homogeneous.  Blending areas of normally distinct pixel data allows them to be represented by short tokens, as in lossless compression.  The result is good compression ratios and images that are often indistinguishable from the originals.

Whatever the method used, data compression techniques are here to stay.  Five years ago, a 200-megabyte hard drive seemed immense.  Today it's a nominal amount of storage.  New generations of software hungrily consume disk space, and compression technologies are a solid alternative in the need to stretch the greatest value from expensive hardware.

Copyright (c) 1993 by Hughes E. Williams


 The Data Compression War

by Ed Williams, Staff Reporter

CARLSBAD, CA -- Microsoft fired the latest shot in what is escalating into the computer industry's most intriguing business battle.  At the beginning of August, the software giant filed a motion in U.S. District Court for a preliminary injunction to stop Stac Electronics' sale of the latest version of its popular data compression program, Stacker 3.1.

In a prepared statement issued from the corporate headquarters in Carlsbad, California, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Stac Electronics, Gary Clow, indicated his belief that the Microsoft action was in response to known problems with the DoubleSpace program, and to Stac's announcement on August 2 of a "Strategic Development Agreement" reached with Novell that would make the Stacker LZS compression technology the standard for Novell products.

Clow added the motion was without merit and that Stac will seek to have it rejected.  His statement reflects the enmity between Stac and Microsoft:  "I believe this is only the beginning of a Microsoft plan to lock up the application software business and impermissibly restrict the legitimate use of MS-DOS.  Now that the FTC is off Microsoft's back, I have to assume that Lotus, Borland, WordPerfect and Oracle are next.  This is the industry's worst fears coming true."

The new Stacker 3.1 requires MS-DOS 6.0 to operate.  It replaces DoubleSpace by use of software hooks integral to the operating system.  When CompuNews contacted Microsoft spokesperson Collins Hemingway for comment, it was informed the case cannot be publicly discussed, that "the injunction is under seal."

The war was enjoined last January when Stac filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft upon the appearance of the beta version of MS-DOS 6.0, complete with DoubleSpace data compression utilities.  In February, Microsoft counterattacked by denying Stac's allegations and launching several counterclaims of it's own.  These fusillades followed on the heels of protracted, and subsequently broken, discussions in which Microsoft negotiated with Stac to use Stacker LZS as the MS-DOS 6.0 imbedded compression scheme.

"Looks like we're in for a protracted legal battle," observes Terence Quinn, vice president of Kidder Peabody & Company.

That the battle ensues is not surprising.  In a scant few years, on-the-fly data compression utilities have seized an important role in the personal computer marketplace.  It was in 1977 that the Lempel-Ziv algorithm--the genesis of today's solutions--first appeared.  But a confluence of events in the PC's evolution was required to explode the need for data compression:  notebook computers began to proliferate; Windows, with applications just as space-hungry as the operating environment, began to sell as fast as retail stores could stock it; and 40Mb and 80Mb hard drives were the de facto standard in new systems, with a 120Mb or 200Mb a seemingly huge upgrade.

The need for disk expanders like Stacker and DoubleSpace continues to escalate because users, individual and corporate, want to wring the most out of expensive hardware resources.  Says Shirley Eis, CEO of Software Corporation of America, a producer of communications software, "Everyone is going to be using compression and decompression software if they are going to be moving things on a network."

To understand why the war over data compression market share stands as it does today, a brief history of the technical and business machinations involved is highly illuminating.

It was at the DATA Show '90 computer exhibition in Tokyo that Stac Electronics introduced Stacker 1.0.  By the mid-1991 release of Stacker 2.0, they had a genuine hit on their hands.  Significant players in the market at the beginning of 1992 also included Verisoft Systems' DoubleDisk, InfoChip Systems' Expanz Plus, and AddStor's SuperStor.

In the spring of 1992, Stac Electronics launched a successful initial public offering (IPO) which raised approximately $16 million and listed them on the NASDAQ.

In mid-1992, Integrated Information Technology's (IIT) Xtradrive product line was scheduled to be released.  Xtradrive was to appear in both software form and as a hardware coprocessor.

Stac filed suit against IIT in early June, accusing the Xtradrive coprocessor of infringement of Stac's U.S. Patent Number 5,003,307.  The software version of Xtradrive was not implicated at that time, but would be pulled into the issue later.

One month later, still embroiled in the lawsuit, Stac reported quarterly earnings of $2.76 million, up from $895,000 the previous year.  Annual revenues had jumped from $3 million to $10.1 million.  However, the company's now-public stock price had been steadily falling from a May, 1992, high of 14 1/8.  By July, the share price dropped to $5.50.  The poor performance was partially a result of analysts' expectations that quarterly earnings would be almost $1 million higher than reported.

Following rapidly, by the end of July, Stac's stock holders filed a class action suit against the firm claiming they had been misled about the company's performance by statements from the management.  The suit named company officers Gary W. Clow, Douglas L. Whiting, Robert W. Johnson, and Arthur J. Collmeyer.  In a prepared statement, Clow commented:  "It is unfortunate that suits such as this one have become routine in today's world.  Stac has consistently fulfilled its disclosure obligations to its investors, and we intend to continue to do so."

Stac released Stacker 3.0 in late 1992 to favorable reviews.  Version 3.0's primary competition was AddStor's SuperStor PRO.

At the 1992 COMDEX in Las Vegas, Stac announced that Stacker 2.0 would be bundled with IBM's new PC-DOS 5.0, and that shipments would include a coupon for low-cost upgrade to Stacker 3.0.

Industry analysts saw this as an attempt to out-step Microsoft, which had reported plans to integrate a data compression utility into MS-DOS 6.0, slated for release in 1993.  We now know that Microsoft and Stac had negotiated to license Stacker LZS for MS-DOS 6.0 and that the talks broke in disagreement the previous spring, just prior to Stac's completion of its initial public offering.

What transpired at these negotiations became at issue, in addition to patent infringement, in the January/February lawsuits exchanged by Stac and Microsoft.  Stac's court documents concede there was a two-year-long series of discussions with Microsoft.  Stac contends that Microsoft negotiated in bad faith, that the company used its weight to push for an unreasonable, royalty-free license for Stacker LZS.

Collins Hemingway said, "We reject their version of events and their implication that we wanted a royalty-free license."  Hemingway indicated that Microsoft had offered "real money" for a Stacker license.  "It was a very substantial payment relative to the size of their business."

The Microsoft suit presented in February included a fraud charge that alleges Stac provided misleading information in the negotiations.  Microsoft contends Stac had no intention of granting a license at all, that instead it was a ploy to delay the introduction of MS-DOS 6.0 and launch Stac's own public stock offering.

Microsoft states it proposed several different licensing arrangements for Stacker.  One of these was a sliding royalty scale which would have brought Stac about $1 million per month.  According to Microsoft, Stac rejected this offer and demanded a royalty four times as great.

Microsoft also asserts that Stac purchased a patent last December with the express purpose of using it in the lawsuit brought by Stac in January.  Interestingly, shortly after Stac's lawsuit, Microsoft acquired a 16-year-old data compression patent, one which predates Stac's.  This patent is referenced in Microsoft's February counterclaim.

Stac points to its legal victory over IIT as evidence of its ability to back up its claims in court.  Clow has said that his company "squashed" IIT's motion for a summary judgement.  IIT settled, part of the deal calling for payment to Stac of an undisclosed sum.  IIT has also purchased a license agreement from Stac on the patents involved in the lawsuit.

After the breakdown in negotiations with Stac, Microsoft turned to Verisoft to provide disk compression technology for MS-DOS 6.0.  Of note is that although Stac filed patent infringement suit against Microsoft, it did not file against Verisoft, the original author of DoubleSpace.

The beta release of MS-DOS 6.0 contained an auxiliary data compression feature called MAXCompress, designed to stretch compression an extra five percent.  Following Stac's lawsuit, MAXCompress was pulled from the production release.  Gary Clow points to this "as further admission of infringement."

In early April, virtually back-to-back, both Stac and Verisoft announced new products in the disk compression arena, both in response to MS-DOS 6.0's DoubleSpace.  The Stac entry was Stacker 3.1, which actually began shipment in June, a month earlier than projected.

Verisoft, of course, is the very company from which Microsoft licensed DoubleSpace.  Verisoft says the new product, Doubledisk Gold, offers greater speed, easier installation, and up to 20 percent tighter compression.  Verisoft maintains Doubledisk Gold outperforms Stacker and SuperStor PRO.

Last May, Stac pointed to MS-DOS 6.0 as the preeminent contributor to its lay-off of 40 employees, representing 20 percent of its staff.  New releases of Stacker for OS/2 and Macintosh were announced, as was a special release of Stacker 3.1 dubbed a "Rescue Mission" for MS-DOS 6.0 DoubleSpace users.  Stac hoped to capitalize on reported bugs in 6.0's DoubleSpace.

Only three bugs have been clearly documented in connection with MS-DOS 6.0's DoubleSpace.  The first was demonstrated by Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates in his satellite-transmitted introduction of 6.0.  If the PC loses power--usually by being unplugged, as Gates did--while SMARTdrive is writing its cache to disk, there is a possibility of data loss.  Gates' point in twice pulling the plug was to demonstrate the data security of DoubleSpace and MemMaker.

A second bug is the capability of the Windows' Undelete command to create files with invalid characters like "?" and "*".

The third bug, reported by Stac, can only be reproduced by a series of convoluted steps unlikely to be performed by the typical PC user.  Arguably, this is not a bug at all because it involves the recovery of a deleted file after new data has been written to the drive on which the file resides.

Stac had hoped its arrangement with IBM for bundling with PC-DOS 5.0 would carry over to IBM's introduction of version 6.0.  The cross-licensing agreement between IBM and Microsoft ends this fall and industry analysts expect the creators of DOS to take divergent paths.  DOS operating systems are anticipated to disperse with Microsoft, IBM, and Novell.

However, IBM has recently elected to go with AddStor for data compression in the newest release of PC-DOS.  AddStor has also opted to take a different tactic in the compression wars.  Rather than directly fight MS-DOS 6.0, in April it debuted DoubleTools.  DoubleTools is an add-on to DoubleSpace rather than a replacement.  It adds graphical displays, analysis tools, a background defragmenter, and data recovery utilities.

The plot thickens with the late-August confirmation that the Department of Justice has begun an inquiry into possible anti-competitive practices by Microsoft.  In his statement quoted earlier, Gary Clow said, "Now that the FTC is off Microsoft's back, I have to assume that Lotus, Borland, WordPerfect and Oracle are next."  He was alluding to the fact that the Federal Trade Commission, although never officially naming a name, had failed to reach a decision in over three years of deliberation over Microsoft's activity.

A Microsoft vice president, William Neukom, commented, "We are gratified that after a very thorough investigation, conducted over a period of 38 months, the FTC concluded that no further action is warranted by the Commission at this time."

All is not yet rosy for Microsoft, though.  The Reuters news service reported that a Justice Department representative said on Friday, August 20, clearance had been given by the FTC to allow the Department to begin its own investigation.  The Justice Department will take possession of thousands of documents already provided by Microsoft to the FTC.

It is reported that Ohio Democratic Senator Howard Metzenbaum, chairman of the Senate Antitrust, Monopolies and Business Rights Subcommittee, and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah influenced allocation of the case to the Department of Justice.

In July, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates said, "There has been nothing that has come up that causes us the slightest concern in the FTC probe."  Gates filed notice during the week of August 15 with the Securities and Exchange Commission that he would sell over one million shares of his Microsoft stock.  This approximately $75 million transaction is, relatively speaking, a small one for the founder of Microsoft.

Microsoft has made few, if any, marketing blunders.  Its quarterly earnings announced in July reached the $1 billion mark.  Although their lawyers may never have a day off, they're certainly being paid on time.

"There's little chance that other data compression software vendors are going to compete successfully against Microsoft," says Phil Devin, Vice President of Storage Technologies at Dataquest, Inc., a marketing firm in San Jose.

Our David and Goliath story has no clear good-guy and bad-guy.  The determination of ethical transgression versus smart business practice rests with the Federal Courts and the Justice Department.  Protracted legal deliberations are assured.

Judge Edward Rafeedie said on August 31 that Microsoft's filing for a temporary injunction against the sale of Stacker 3.1 would not be upheld.  From U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, the verdict was returned that the case would have to be decided by trial.

Microsoft claims both Stacker 3.0 and 3.1 are in violation of patents owned by Microsoft, but the request for preliminary injunction filed the second week of August was related to the primary lawsuit only in that it sought to halt the sale of Stacker 3.1.  Stacker 3.1 requires software "hooks" integrated directly into the MS-DOS 6.0 operating system.

In a prepared statement, the President of Stac Electronics, Gary Clow, said, "We are very pleased that Judge Rafeedie agreed with us, ruling in our favor against Microsoft's motion, and we now look forward to going to trial in December on our original complaint."

A Microsoft spokesperson pointed out that Judge Rafeedie's decision on the preliminary injunction in no way reflects the merit of arguments in Microsoft's lawsuit filed earlier in the year.  The court date is now set for December 14.  As developments progress in the compression wars, CompuNews will continue to bring you the big picture.

Copyright (c) 1993 by Hughes E. Williams


Appreciating a Good Deal

PC Life: Appreciating a Good Deal

by Alan Frayer, Columnist

I was talking with Randy the other day about his car. Randy's right at that age where he wants to deny his age, and the easiest way for him to recapture his youth is to buy a sporty car. With budget a consideration, Randy chose to buy a Saturn, and he's been happy with his choice... until he learned recently that Saturn planned to release a newer, more powerful model.

Randy wants to trade in his Saturn on the newer model, but the cost of frequent trades may keep him from his dream. "It's a shame they don't upgrade cars the way they upgrade software," he reflected, and I agreed, surprising myself in the process.

It isn't surprising I agreed with Randy; I do that rather frequently. What's surprising is that I've spent the last three years belly-aching about software prices, and in one fell swoop came to realize how good we really have it. Think about it!

We trade in our cars in exchange for newer models, right? Wouldn't you call that a competitive upgrade? I might if we were allowed to buy the new car at a price lower than the value of the car, less the value of the trade in. All we really do when we trade a car is sell it to the dealer and apply the proceeds to the cost of the new one.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could upgrade our cars for a fraction of what the car would sell for alone? Sure it would, but don't hold your breath waiting for GM to do it.

Maybe the value of software upgrades would be better appreciated if we discussed something a little closer to the subject: books. I remember buying a huge book on chemistry and physics back in high school. Everyone bought one. It was the thing to do. It probably cost me about $30... a significant amount for a high school student back then. As is typical of books on science, the facts changed over that year (why is it facts always change in science, anyway? They aren't allowed to change anywhere else!). This was the excuse offered when we tried to sell our books to the next year's chemistry class. If we wanted a current volume, we had to buy a current book, at full price.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could upgrade our Encyclopedia Brittanica every year, without taking out a mortgage? You can't do it, or upgrade any other book, short of buying a new copy at full price. At best, you can turn in your outdated copy at a used book store for credit toward buying other outdated books.

When it comes down to it, the software industry has got to be the only one that will let you maintain the most current release for a fraction of the cost of buying new. How can we begrudge them a $495 price tag when we can keep getting the most recent releases after than for a measly $100 a copy? Anyone else would charge us another $495.

While Randy is fretting over how to pay for an upgrade to his Saturn, I'm thankful my interest is in an industry that chose to go out of its way to protect my wallet. Now if only I could limit my interest to an affordable portion of that industry.

Copyright (c) 1993 by Alan Frayer, CNA

All Rights Reserved


 ACAD: AutoDesk Inc.

Date	High	Low	Close	Volume (100/s)
08/25/93	46 1/2	45 1/2	46	3984
08/26/93	46	44	44 1/4	7054
08/27/93	46 1/2	44	46 1/2	4865
08/30/93	49 3/4	46	49 1/2	7844
08/31/93	50 1/2	49 1/4	50 1/2	6757
09/01/93	51 3/4	48 3/4	48 7/8	5430
09/02/93	49 1/4	47 1/2	48 3/4	2690
09/03/93	48 3/4	48 1/4	48 1/4	1030
09/07/93	48 1/4	46 1/4	46 1/2	2951
09/08/93	46 1/2	45 1/2	46	3589
09/09/93	46 1/4	45 1/2	46 1/8	1152
09/10/93	48	45 3/4	47 1/4	2862


 ADBE: Adobe Systems Inc.

Date	High	Low	Close	Volume (100/s)
08/25/93	21 1/2	19 3/4	20 1/8	24715
08/26/93	20 3/4	19 1/4	20 1/4	11493
08/27/93	21 1/4	20	20 3/4	18485
08/30/93	21 1/4	20 1/2	21 1/8	6046
08/31/93	21 1/2	20 3/4	21 1/4	5421
09/01/93	21 1/4	20 3/4	20 7/8	4095
09/02/93	21 1/2	20 1/2	21 1/4	5631
09/03/93	21 1/4	20	20	3322
09/07/93	20 1/2	19 1/4	19 1/2	4212
09/08/93	20	19	20	7765
09/09/93	20 1/2	18 1/2	19	10890
09/10/93	19 3/4	19	19 1/2	4143


 ALDC: Aldus Corp.

Date	High	Low	Close	Volume (100/s)
08/25/93	18 1/4	17 1/4	18 1/4	973
08/26/93	18	17 1/2	17 3/4	2512
08/27/93	17 5/8	17	17	2166
08/30/93	18	16 1/4	17 3/4	2854
08/31/93	18 3/4	17 3/4	18 1/4	2412
09/01/93	18 1/4	17 3/4	18 1/4	162
09/02/93	18 1/2	17 3/4	18	2275
09/03/93	18 1/2	18	18 1/2	748
09/07/93	19	18	18 5/8	3155
09/08/93	18 3/4	18 1/4	18 3/8	606
09/09/93	19	18 1/4	18 3/4	682
09/10/93	19 1/4	18 3/4	18 3/4	962


CA: Computer Associates International Inc.

 CA: Computer Associates Int'l Inc.

Date	High	Low	Close	Volume (100/s)
08/25/93	30 1/8	29 5/8	29 3/4	3772
08/26/93	30	28 7/8	29 5/8	3230
08/27/93	30 1/8	29 1/4	30	2299
08/30/93	30 1/4	29 7/8	30 1/4	2125
08/31/93	30 3/8	29 7/8	30 1/4	2950
09/01/93	30 5/8	29 7/8	30 5/8	4106
09/02/93	30 7/8	30 1/2	30 3/4	1757
09/03/93	31 1/2	30 3/4	31 3/8	2769
09/07/93	32 1/4	31 3/8	31 7/8	5187
09/08/93	31 7/8	29 3/4	29 7/8	10945
09/09/93	30 5/8	30	30 3/8	5050
09/10/93	31 1/8	30 3/8	30 1/2	4730


 CAER: Caere Corp.

Date	High	Low	Close	Volume (100/s)
08/25/93	7 3/4	7	7 1/4	1135
08/26/93	7 1/2	7	7 1/8	656
08/27/93	7 1/2	6 3/4	7 1/4	1177
08/30/93	7 1/4	6 1/4	7	2288
08/31/93	7 1/4	6 3/4	7 1/4	1046
09/01/93	7 1/4	6 3/4	7	1063
09/02/93	7 1/4	6 3/4	6 3/4	526
09/03/93	7 1/8	6 1/2	7	430
09/07/93	7 1/4	6 3/4	7 1/4	372
09/08/93	7	6 1/2	7	695
09/09/93	7	6 1/2	6 5/8	270
09/10/93	7 1/4	6 1/2	7 1/4	1077


 INTC: Intel Corp.

Date	High	Low	Close	Volume (100/s)
08/25/93	64 1/4	61 5/8	62 1/2	35445
08/26/93	64	61 1/4	63 3/8	33950
08/27/93	64 1/4	62 1/2	63 5/8	17040
08/30/93	64 3/4	63 1/2	64	18500
08/31/93	64 1/2	63 1/4	64 1/4	19982
09/01/93	64 1/4	62 3/4	63 1/2	28438
09/02/93	63 1/2	62 3/4	63	18777
09/03/93	63	62 1/4	62 3/4	17241
09/07/93	64	61 1/2	62	22180
09/08/93	63 1/4	60 1/4	63	54239
09/09/93	65 1/2	62 1/2	64 3/4	51693
09/10/93	66 3/4	65	65 1/2	46617


 LOTS: Lotus Development Corp.

Date	High	Low	Close	Volume (100/s)
08/25/93	33 1/4	32	32 5/8	29259
08/26/93	32 3/4	30 3/4	31 1/2	19321
08/27/93	31 1/2	30 1/4	31	13139
08/30/93	33 5/8	31 1/4	33 1/2	35230
08/31/93	35 1/2	33 1/4	35 1/4	25843
09/01/93	35 7/8	34	34	11154
09/02/93	34 1/2	32 7/8	33 1/8	20230
09/03/93	33 7/8	33	33 5/8	4599
09/07/93	33 3/4	32 1/4	32 7/8	8887
09/08/93	34	32	34	10572
09/09/93	36	34	35 3/4	14113
09/10/93	37 1/8	36	36 3/4	11176


 MNPI: Microcom Inc.

Date	High	Low	Close	Volume (100/s)
08/25/93	1 3/4	1 5/8	1 3/4	2484
08/26/93	1 3/4	1 5/8	1 23/	883
08/27/93	2 1/8	1 11/	2 1/8	1963
08/30/93	2 3/8	2	2 3/8	1468
08/31/93	2 1/2	2 1/4	2 3/8	2032
09/01/93	2 1/2	2 1/4	2 3/8	1639
09/02/93	2 3/8	2 1/4	2 5/1	727
09/03/93	2 3/8	2	2 1/8	855
09/07/93	2 1/8	1 7/8	2 1/8	372
09/08/93	2 1/8	1 7/8	2 1/8	465
09/09/93	2 3/8	2	2 1/8	544
09/10/93	2 3/8	2 1/8	2 1/4	945


 MSFT: Microsoft Corp.

Date	High	Low	Close	Volume (100/s)
08/25/93	76	72 7/8	74 1/4	21850
08/26/93	73 3/4	71 1/2	72 1/8	42580
08/27/93	72 1/2	71 1/4	71 7/8	21176
08/30/93	73 1/4	71 3/4	72 5/8	16879
08/31/93	75 1/2	73 1/2	75 1/8	29069
09/01/93	77 1/4	75	76 3/4	26886
09/02/93	78 1/2	76 1/8	76 5/8	17343
09/03/93	76 3/4	75 1/4	75 3/4	8375
09/07/93	76 1/4	74 1/4	74 3/4	12081
09/08/93	74 3/4	73 1/4	74 1/2	17118
09/09/93	76 1/2	74 1/2	76 1/4	9330
09/10/93	78 1/4	76 1/4	78	17669


 NOVL: Novell Inc.

Date	High	Low	Close	Volume (100/s)
08/25/93	21 1/4	19 3/4	21 1/4	57044
08/26/93	19 1/2	18 1/2	19 1/8	36531
08/27/93	20	19	19 7/8	56791
08/30/93	20 1/8	19 5/8	19 5/8	23690
08/31/93	19 7/8	19 3/8	19 5/8	30799
09/01/93	19 3/4	19 3/8	19 5/8	34892
09/02/93	19 3/4	19	19 1/8	33398
09/03/93	19 1/8	18 5/8	18 7/8	35394
09/07/93	19 5/8	18 7/8	19	11696
09/08/93	19 1/4	18 3/4	19 1/8	22763
09/09/93	19 1/2	19	19 1/8	24683
09/10/93	19 7/8	19 1/8	19 5/8	20572


 QDEK: Quarterdeck Office Systems Inc.

Date	High	Low	Close	Volume (100/s)
08/25/93	3	2 15/	2 15/	578
08/26/93	3 1/1	2 15/	2 15/	1786
08/27/93	3 1/1	2 15/	2 31/	1096
08/30/93	3 1/1	2 7/8	2 29/	1134
08/31/93	3	2 7/8	2 7/8	1095
09/01/93	3	2 7/8	2 7/8	1390
09/02/93	2 15/	2 7/8	2 15/	810
09/03/93	2 15/	2 3/4	2 3/4	769
09/07/93	2 7/8	2 11/	2 11/	1762
09/08/93	2 7/8	2 11/	2 11/	968
09/09/93	2 3/4	2 11/	2 3/4	505
09/10/93	2 13/	2 11/	2 3/4	640


SKEYF: Softkey Software Products, Inc.

 SKEYF: Softkey Software Products Inc.

Date	High	Low	Close	Volume (100/s)
08/25/93	4 11/	4 1/2	4 11/	269
08/26/93	4 11/	4 1/2	4 5/8	146
08/27/93	4 5/8	4 1/2	4 5/8	1306
08/30/93	4 5/8	4 7/1	4 1/2	135
08/31/93	4 1/2	4 1/4	4 1/4	49
09/01/93	4 5/8	4 1/4	4 1/4	79
09/02/93	4 9/3	4 1/4	4 1/4	105
09/03/93	4 1/2	4 1/4	4 1/4	154
09/07/93	4 1/2	4 3/1	4 3/1	183
09/08/93	4 3/8	3 7/8	3 7/8	728
09/09/93	4 1/8	3 3/4	3 7/8	661
09/10/93	4 1/4	4	4 1/4	354


 STAC: STAC Electronics

Date	High	Low	Close	Volume (100/s)
08/25/93	2 3/4	2 1/2	2 9/1	721
08/26/93	2 7/8	2 1/2	2 11/	297
08/27/93	3 1/8	2 3/4	2 7/8	1430
08/30/93	3 1/8	2 7/8	3 1/8	1336
08/31/93	3 1/4	3	3	955
09/01/93	3 1/4	2 7/8	3	977
09/02/93	3	2 7/8	2 7/8	214
09/03/93	3	2 3/4	2 3/4	38
09/07/93	3	2 3/4	2 3/4	116
09/08/93	3	2 1/2	2 1/2	201
09/09/93	2 1/2	2 1/2	2 1/2	11
09/10/93	2 7/8	2 1/2	2 7/8	111


 SYMC: Symantec Corp.

Date	High	Low	Close	Volume (100/s)
08/25/93	15 5/8	15	15 3/8	2735
08/26/93	15 3/4	15	15 3/4	851
08/27/93	15 3/4	15 5/8	15 5/8	394
08/30/93	16 1/8	15 1/2	15 5/8	2189
08/31/93	17 1/8	16 1/8	16 5/8	16829
09/01/93	16 7/8	16 1/8	16 3/4	10950
09/02/93	17 1/4	16 1/2	16 7/8	5123
09/03/93	17	16 5/8	16 7/8	721
09/07/93	16 5/8	15 3/8	15 3/4	2862
09/08/93	16	15 1/2	15 3/4	4008
09/09/93	17	15 1/2	16 7/8	7595
09/10/93	17 1/4	16 3/4	16 3/4	8113


 WDST: Wordstar International Inc.

Date	High	Low	Close	Volume (100/s)
08/25/93	1 5/3	1 3/3	1 1/8	5442
08/26/93	1 5/3	1 3/3	1 5/3	5541
08/27/93	1 5/3	1 3/3	1 1/8	4101
08/30/93	1 3/1	1 1/1	1 3/1	3392
08/31/93	1 1/4	1 5/3	1 3/1	1985
09/01/93	1 1/4	1 1/8	1 1/8	374
09/02/93	1 1/4	1 3/3	1 3/1	1626
09/03/93	1 1/4	1 5/3	1 3/1	1252
09/07/93	1 3/1	1 1/8	1 3/1	494
09/08/93	1 3/1	1 1/1	1 1/1	3492
09/09/93	1 3/1	1 3/3	1 1/8	1902
09/10/93	1 3/1	1 1/8	1 1/8	577