[rbanffy]

> Most of those "lives destroyed" were destroyed in fair play.

Are we talking about Microsoft as in "Comes vs. Microsoft"?

> Gates really pushed hard on the notion of standalone software that is purchased

He was not the first and didn't push particularly hard. The first "serious" computer I had was an Apple II (the first one was a Sinclair ZX-81 clone) and a lot of the software I ran on it was acquired well after the purchase.

[kenjackson]

Yes, that Microsoft. The totality of damage in the Comes case, IMO, is very isolated. And a lot of what they was pushed against MS was tough talk, but not in itself illegal (but a lot was illegal too... I'm not letting them off the hook for that, but I'm not blindly jumping on them for everything).

Your recollection of the history of software is different than mine. I recall Microsoft being one of the biggest pushers of COTS software. At the time I was starting in software development, and there was certainly this notion that money was NOT to be made writing software for sale at the store. Those were for toys. It was services provided through companies like IBM. MS, along with a few other companies, showed that real money can be made writing software only.

[rbanffy]

Microsoft was a strong proponent of COTS only after the DOS deal with IBM. Before that they did lots of embedded languages for computer manufacturers. IIRC, I have used only Microsoft versions of BASIC in my early career.

They always had a strong stance against piracy, something that's understandable even when you consider they had limited exposure to it in those early days because of their OEM deals with computer makers.

[stan_rogers]

That anti-piracy stance goes back to Micro Soft BASIC for the Altair in 1976: http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html