Jump to content
IGNORED

New Floppy Days Podcast episode release - NEC PC 6001 and Japanese computers - with Carlos Camacho!


Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, rkindig said:

New Floppy Days is out!  Do you want to know more about Japanese computers, and especially the NEC TREK (NEC PC-6000 series)?  Listen as Carlos Camacho and I walk thru Part 1 of our coverage.

 

https://floppydays.libsyn.com/floppy-days-121-nec-pc-6001-and-japanese-computers-with-carlos-camacho-part-i 

Will give it a listen soon enough.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2023 at 12:45 PM, rkindig said:

New Floppy Days is out!  Do you want to know more about Japanese computers, and especially the NEC TREK (NEC PC-6000 series)?  Listen as Carlos Camacho and I walk thru Part 1 of our coverage.

 

https://floppydays.libsyn.com/floppy-days-121-nec-pc-6001-and-japanese-computers-with-carlos-camacho-part-i 

Enjoyed the episode.  Also love learning about machines that I have no clue about.  However, didn't like your begging for Patreon support.  Funds to keep and/or improve production values, I can understand.  But, to ask for monies to help you go out and buy more stuff is a bit shady for me.  Sorry, not trying to hate, but it is just something I don't agree with at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

One can find ads for the PC-88 in Byte and Infoworld from 1983 and Creative Computing has a review in the Nov 1983 issue. Clearly a sign that more than a market test was planned though few units seem to have made it to the US.

 

Very favorable review; I think the $2497 price for a system with 64K and two floppy drives compared unfavorably with TRS-80 Model 4 with 64K and 2 drives for $1999. NEC provided a good software package but not everyone wanted Multiplan and Wordstar. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note I did find a lawsuit that involved the PC-8000 (Integrated Micro Systems, Inc. v. NEC Home Electronics (USA), Inc.) where a total of two units were ordered while the unused portion of the contract under dispute was for orders of more than 200 machines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2023 at 4:38 PM, Krebizfan said:

Note I did find a lawsuit that involved the PC-8000 (Integrated Micro Systems, Inc. v. NEC Home Electronics (USA), Inc.) where a total of two units were ordered while the unused portion of the contract under dispute was for orders of more than 200 machines. 

 

Georgia Court of Appeal, 1985: 174 Ga. App. 197, 329 S.E.2d 554

 

Quote

 

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff seller brought an action against defendants, distributor and buyer, claiming tortious interference with contractual relations, breach of contract, and tortious interference with business relations. The distributor and buyer filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the Fulton Superior Court (Georgia). The seller appealed.


Overview

The seller, who engaged in the sales and service of computers, entered into an agreement with the distributor and became an authorized dealer of the distributor's equipment. The buyer entered into a contract agreement for sales with the seller. Thereafter, the distributor sold computers directly to the buyer as a "value added" dealer. The lower court found that the seller/buyer agreement was not a requirements contract and that neither that agreement nor the dealer agreement between the seller and the distributor and could be the subjects of an action for tortious interference with contractual relations or for breach of contract. The court affirmed the judgment in part and reversed it in part. Summary judgment was properly entered on the claims for breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations. The seller's claim for tortious interference with business relations was not amenable to summary adjudication. The evidence was not dispositive of whether the distributor's actions during and subsequent to the seller's negotiations with the buyer amounted to a waiver of the dealer agreement provisions barring the seller from sales to customers such as the buyer.


Outcome

The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in part and reversed it in part.

 

 

 

Edited by jhd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...