Tim Prince wrote:
> Gary Scott wrote:
> > eperea wrote:
> >> Gary Scott wrote:
> >>> I still don't see how they can call it "visial fortran". Isn't that
> >>> trademarked already? MS sure wouldn't allow somebody to put out a
> >>> visual something that they produce without a $ fight.
> >> There is at least one commercial Visual Fortran out already:
> >> http://www.intel.com/cd/software/pro...ers/278834.htm
> >> Version 9.1 is for Visual Studio 2005. I imagine Intel would object as
> >> much as Microsoft.
> > That's what I meant. I assume that MS authorized DEC to use the name,
> > and that that authorization transferred to Compaq/HP and then to Intel
> > (don't know that) when the compiler/components/rights were successively
> > purchased by those companies. So I'd assume that the trademark belongs
> > to Intel (unless Compaq/HP retained it, but I doubt that since they
> > aren't using it). It is also strange to me that Portland thinks that it
> > can compete and provide a better product than Lahey, Absoft, and Intel
> > (and Salford/Silverfrost and Pathscale and ...). (meaning aren't there
> > enough already?)
> I work for one of those companies, and I have no idea what the answer
> is, beyond the public information, which is often misquoted. HP does
> own and retain the rights to DEC/Compaq Visual Fortran, and their disuse
> of it does not give anyone else a right to use it.
Your are correct. HP owns DEC/Compaq Visual Fortran, Intel owns Intel
Visual Fortran and PGI owns PGI Visual Fortran. According to the
Trademarks and Patent Office web site, no one holds the "Visual
> Nor did Microsoft
> extend the agreement under which CVF was developed to any other successor.
Again you are correct. Microsoft did not "extend" the agreement, they
signed a new one.
Please take a look at the PGI Visual Fortran Public Preview and tell me
if you don't think it's more fully integrated into Visual Studio than
other Visual Fortran products.
> Microsoft exercises a great deal of control over any integration of 3rd
> party compilers with Visual Studio, and it seems they may have
> negotiated a change in the rules again in this case. Those rules tend to
> restrict what kind of debugging facilities will be available etc etc. I
> have no idea whether HP may have been a party to the naming or
> development of this product.
For the record, HP was not a party.
The Portland Group