Home‎ > ‎Large Systems Collection‎ > ‎

Keronix IDS 16/12

Keronix Data General Nova Clone
 
The museum has, after some time and effort by Kevin Stumpf and Ron Fraser, succeeded in obtaining a Keronix machine with its original mounting rack. The original owner of this system was Mini Computer Systems, Inc. of Elmsford, NY.


One version of the Data general vs Keronix story is:

Originally, Keronix, based in Santa Monica, California, made 32K memory boards compatible with Data General's Nova line of mini-computers. To DG's great dismay, they sold their boards for $3300 each, half of the price which DG charged. To further test DG's composure and patience, Keronix engineers were able to reverse engineer the entire DG computer system and offer their own completely compatible machine at a much lower cost to the customer.

On one pleasant Sunday evening January 3, 1973, the Keronix factory burned. When firemen arrived, they found a man unconscious in the production area, with an empty gasolene container nearby. He was revived in hospital, but refused to give his name to the police who sat attendance by his bedside.

Subsequent investigations revealed that he was a private investigator from Philadelphia who was frequently employed by a large legal firm in that city, among whose major clients was Data General.

This is a Wall Street Journal article on the arson case.
 
Click on the image for a larger view.


From Business Week, July 28, 1975

Espionage in the Computer Business 

George Foldvary, executive vice-president of Keronix, Inc., was 
quietly celebrating his 51st birthday with a woman friend at a Los 
Angeles restaurant on Jan. 3, 1973, when a business associate phoned 
to tell him there was a fire at the plant in Santa Monica. Figuring 
that it was a ruse to lure him to a surprise party, Foldvary, still wear- 
ing his dinner jacket, drove to the plant, ready to swing. But when 
he arrived, he found that the fire report was no joke. 

Fire officials and insurance investigators quickly diagnosed arson. 
Keronix Chairman Laszlo Keresztury, 40, like Foldvary a Hungarian 
immigrant, became impatient with local police efforts to identify the 
culprit and hired a private investigator. The detective's findings 
caused Keresztury last December to file a suit that shook the entire 
computer industry. 

Tiny Keronix, a privately owned manufacturer of minicomputer 
core memories whose $3.5-million sales in 1974 make it a mere blip in 
the $1.25-billion minicomputer industry, charged Data General Corp. 
of Southboro, Mass., an industry leader, with an elaborate conspiracy 
to put Keronix out of business. The suit alleges that these machina- 
tions ultimately led to the fire. Keronix asked $5-million for interrup- 
tion of business and $50-million in punitive damages. 

Data General's young entrepreneurs, who in just seven years have 
built their company from nothing to sales of $83.2-million, angrily 
denied the allegations and answered the Keronix suit in kind. Their 
countercomplaint charged Keronix with pirating trade secrets from 
Data General. "Keronix and its agents,'' it said, "obtained such pro- 
prietary material by, among other methods, purchasing Data General 
equipment and in connection with the purchases obtaining such pro- 
prietary material, which is furnished by Data General to its 
customers." 

fair-weather friends 

Pressuring of customers and industrial espionage are not uncommon 
in the fiercely competitive minicomputer industry, which is only 10 
years old and still in its rough-and-tumble formative stage. One meas- 
ure of how much investors distrust the industry is the refusal of 
some to dismiss the seemingly far-out suggestion that big and suc- 
cessful Data General might really have had something to do with the 
fire at tiny Keronix. When the Keronix suit was made public last 
January (page 62), Data General's stock, always among the more 
volatile issues on the New York Stock Exchange, dropped to less than 
9. Even the institutions, which have been friendly toward Data Gen- 
eral, grew nervous. The biggest seller in January was said to be Key- 
stone Custodian Funds of Boston, which reportedly sold 300,000 
shares at an average price of about $9 per share. Since then, DG's 
stock has rebounded and is now trading at about $35 per share. 

While Keronix and Data General exchanged civil suits, a federal 
grand jury in Los Angeles spent nearly two years pondering the 
criminal aspects. On June 30, a gleeful Data General issued a press 
release reporting that federal authorities had told the company that 
the investigation had been terminated and that no federal indict- 
ments were forthcoming. 

The DG release was accurate but incomplete. As Vincent J. Marella, 
Assistant U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, describes what happened, 
"We are declining prosecution and referring the case to local authori- 
ties because we have limited statutes.'- This means that the Los 
Angeles district attorney will inherit the grand jury files and can 
pick up where the grand jury left off. 

Meanwhile, the two companies have been lobbing allegations at 
each other, Keronix claiming that Data General wants to put it out of 
business, DG charging that Keronix is simply running a huge pub- 
licity stunt. The battle has been joined by a phalanx of high-priced 
lawyers. At least eight private detective agencies have at various 
times been hired by one side or the other, and local, state, and federal 
agencies have been drawn into the fray. 

ANTAGONISTS 

Keresztury, who owns 46 percent of the stock in Keronix, used 
$10,000 of his savings to incorporate the company he started in a spare 
bedroom six years ago. He had fled Hungary in 1956 and after attend- 
ing the University of London came to the U.S., where he worked for 
Ampex Corp. and later Teledyne, Inc. There, he says, he "designed 
computer memories that are still being used today." 

Data General, on its part, accounts for 10.7 percent of worldwide 
shipments of minicomputers, according to a survey by Modern Data 
Services, Inc. That makes DG No. 2 in the industry, a long way 
behind Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC), which holds 33.6 percent 
of the market. 

Data General grew out of DEC. In 1968, Edson D. de Castro, then 
30, quit his systems engineering job at DEC's Maynard (Mass.) head- 
quarters to form DG in neighboring Southboro. Some of his associates 
were even younger than de Castro, who became president. For financ- 
ing, they turned to New York attorney Federick R. Adler, who raised 
capital and was an initial investor. Adler, then 43, was the old man 
among the youthful organizers. He became secretary and a board 
member. 

No sooner had DG begun producing its Nova series of minicom- 
puters — in direct competition with DEC's immensely popular PDP-8 
line — than even smaller companies began duplicating the product. The 
big mainframe-computer manufacturers had long since learned to live 
with this kind of problem, but it was new to the infant minicomputer 
industry, and de Castro reportedly was enraged by what he viewed as 
thievery. 

Typically, the supplier of a computer provides the buyer with man- 
uals that not only describe the hardware but also spell out the soft- 
ware — the list of instructions that tell the computer what to do. Small, 
low-overhead companies have been known to use the data in these 
blueprints to duplicate the hardware of major companies by a process 
called "reverse engineering." 

Once it knows how the original was built, a small company can 
begin to make replacement parts and peripheral equipment that fit 
the system and can be operated by the original software. These com- 
panies can almost always do the job cheaper than a big computer 
maker can because, as Donal W. Fuller, chairman of Microdata Corp., 
another minicomputer maker, explains, "they don't have the market- 
ing, product development, and software overhead costs.'' 

They must be careful not to infringe on patents, which the big com- 
panies use increasingly as a defense. And there is the murky area of 
trade secrets which, although not patentable, may be considered privi- 
ledged. Reverse engineering "is fairly new in the minicomputer in- 
dustry, but it is fair play," says Microdata 's Fuller. "Keronix does 
it to Microdata, too, but we don't sue." 

DRAWING THE LINE 

De Castro is not so patient, though, and he has not hesitated to 
sue. His battles with Keronix began more than four years ago when 
DG's Los Angeles law firm, Keatinge, Libott, Bates & Pastor, hired 
California Attorneys Investigators, Inc., to learn if the Santa Monica 
company was stealing secrets from DG. In a confidential report dated 
Sept. 1, 1971, the detectives said : "There does not appear to be explicit 
subterfuge or espionage occurring between the subject company and 
the competitive computer companies, including client company." 

DG was unhappy with California Attorneys' conclusions, so in 
May, 1972, the management hired Dan Sullivan, a Boston detective 
who had been used by a DG executive in a divorce fight. Acccording 
to attorney-investor Adier, Sullivan's assignment was to look for 
leaks within DG. "We wanted to know if any employee of DG was 
selling trade secrets, with particular emphasis on Keronix," says 
Adler. 

In a month on the job, Sullivan apparently found little evidence of 
leaks from within DG, so the investigation again turned to Keronix. 
Sullivan hired a Los Angeles private detective named Robert A. Clark 
to carry out the West Coast snooping. Clark attempted unsuccessfully 
to tap Keronix' telephone lines, according to the Keronix suit. Next, 
says the suit, Clark and two associates "fraudulently" obtained Kero- 
nix telephone bills from General Telephone Co.'s office in Santa 
Monica. 

The detectives were trying to learn which DG customers were also 
doing business with Keronix. This could lead them to companies that 
were passing DG manuals on to Keronix, enabling Keronix to do 
"reverse engineering" on DG products and to undercut DG's core mem- 
ory prices. Pressure was then allegedly brought to bear on these 
customers by DG's marketing operation. 

Adler, speaking for DG management, refuses comment on the tele- 
phone bills. Nor will Richard Bates, a partner in DG's West Coast
law firm. But he does allow : "You can obtain phone records of anyone 
for a small payment. It might be illegal for the phone company or 
phone company employee to give them. But it is not illegal to get 
them." 

PRESSURE ON CUSTOMERS 

Laszlo Keresztury says that he was puzzled at the time by the num- 
ber of calls he got from customers complaining that DG had learned 
that they were doing business with him. But he gives only a few ex- 
amples because, he claims, his diary was destroyed in the fire. 

Clinton Day, vice-president of Beehive Medical Electronics in Salt 
Lake City, says that a DG agent made some "mild threats" and 
"threatened to sue is if we continued dealing with Keronix." Accord- 
ing to Day, the DG sales agent also "implied that DG had industrial 
spies that were keeping Keronix under surveillance." 

Another DG-Keronix customer, Frederick J. McKee, vice-president 
and general manager of M&M Computer Industries, Inc. a Singer Co. 
subsidiary, says : "Data General is a very tough competitor, and they 
can be very heavy-handed." 

Keronix' suit claims, however, that the sleuthing done for Data 
General by Sullivan, Clark, and others went far beyond obtaining 
telephone bills and pressuring Keronix' customers — and indeed led 
directly to the fire. But Adler of Data General says that DG finished 
with Sullivan's services in August, 1972 — and the fire at Keronix took 
place five months later. 

THE ARSON JOB 

There was no doubt that the fire was the work of an arsonist. Kero- 
nix' insurance carrier, Insurance Co. of North America, hired Jasich & 
Lowe, Los Angeles fire investigators, to look into the fire. It turned 
out that fires had been set in Keresztury's desk and in the blueprint 
room, says investigator Thomas Pugh. The locations of the fires led 
to suspicions of espionage. 

Oddly, in forcing a shipping door open with a truck, the arsonists 
did not set off the ultrasonic burglar alarm system. And even though 
there was plenty of expensive equipment about, all that was stolen 
were a typewriter, an adding machine, and a six-pack of 7-Up. 

Months later, the Los Angeles County sheriff's staff found a "fence" 
who was trying to sell the typewriter. The investigators traced the 
typewriter back to a man named Ralph A. Zoebisch, who was on 
probation after a conviction for receiving stolen property. Zoebisch, 
who is identified in the suit, says that he told the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation and the Santa Monica police that he worked in the ship- 
ping department of a company next-door to Keronix. He told the 
Santa Monica police that Clark had offered him $300 in advance and 
$200 upon completion for setting the Keronix fire. Zoebisch, who has 
since been charged with possession of stolen property, said that to make 
it look like a burglary he took a few items. 

Zoebisch repeated these statements this week in an interview with 
Business Week. "It was a business deal," says Zoebisch. "Clark told 
me what he wanted done. When you do something illegal, they don't 
tell you why, and I don't ask questions." 

Zoebisch also told how, at the behest of a detective working for 
Keronix, he had identified Clark as the man who had paid him for
the arson. He said he pointed Clark out in the crowded lobby of a 
Los Angeles office building. A police source says that Zoebisch also 
identified Clark's photograph. 

A STORY ATTACKED 

The Zoebisch story has been under attack by DG's West Coast at- 
torneys, who hired yet another private detective agency, this time the 
internationally known Intertel, Inc. An Intertel detective, along with 
Robert Clark, went to a California prison camp where the fence's 
brother was serving time for possession of marijuana. According to 
Santa Monica police sources, the fence is important because he can 
confirm the Clark-Zoebisch tie, as stated in the Keronix suit. 

DG attorneys have say that the fence is recanting some of his claims 
to the police about the fire. Keronix and Zoebisch argue that this took 
place after the prison farm visit because the detectives threatened the 
fence and his family. 

Intertel detective Albert A. Murphy would not comment on the 
allegation, DG lawyers and Clark deny it. Calling the prison-farm 
story "ludicrous," Clark claims not to have met Zoebisch or the fence 
until 1975, two years after the alleged arson. 

Keronix suggests in its suit that Data General sought to hide pay- 
ments to Clark and his West Coast team by using a company caJled 
Chris D. Christimirk as a conduit. The implication is that this com- 
pany "laundered" the money. 

No company of that name exists, but a now-defunct Boston collec- 
tion agency was named Christimrick. It was founded by Barry Hara- 
den, a Boston insurance man, and its strange name was coined from his 
sons' first names — Christopher, Timothy, and Patrick. But Haraden 
claims that he does not know any of the DG defendants and says : "I 
couldn't even launder my own shirt." 

Haraden acknowledges that he did send Clark two checks, each for 
$1,000. But he claims that he did this to help out DG's detective, Dan 
Sullivan, who, he says, was having financial problems and could not 
afford to pay Clark directly. Sullivan, he says, was a friend and a 
former employer of his wife. 

WHOM TO BELIEVE? 

As the case has dragged on from months into years, it has become 
mostly a question of whose detective you believe. Data General, for all 
its success and sophistication in making minicomputers, has used one 
detective after another in looking for evidence against Keronix. And 
the crux of DG's countersuit is that Keronix' private detective, who dug 
up all the dirt on DG's detectives, is himself a tarnished individual with 
a criminal past. 

The countersuit says that this detective has "publicly admitted that 
he has committed the crimes, among others, of perjury, subornation of 
perjury, embezzlement, bribing officials of the City of New York . . . 
labor union officials . . . [and] is an admitted associate of known un- 
derworld figures." 

Once known as Herbert Itkin, the detective was for 20 years an 
undercover agent abroad and in the U.S. for the Central Intelligence 
Agency and the FBI. He was a lawyer with a long list of mob clients, 
and his testimony helped send two leading New York politicians and 
more than a dozen organized crime figures to prison. 

In 1972, the Justice Dept. set him up on the West Coast with a new 
identity, and his new name — as well as his old one — was revealed in 
the Data General countersuit. As it happens, a New York lawyer, Kob- 
ert Morvillo, who handled the criminal aspects of the case for Data 
General, was formerly head of the frauds section in the office of the 
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Itkin was his 
star witness in a number of criminal prosecutions, and Morvillo was 
among the people who arranged Itkin's new identity. Morvillo dropped 
out of the Justice Dept. for a time, worked for Fred Adler's law firm, 
returned to the government, and in 1973 left again to start his own 
practice. One of his first cases was to advise DG executives in connec- 
tion with the grand jury investigation into the Keronix fire. 

Morvillo heatedly denies that he ever informed DG's executives or 
its other attorneys of Itkin's history. He claims that he did not know 
for six months that Itkin was involved, adding : "I completely isolated 
myself from the civil suit." 

When asked where Data General learned about Itkin's new identity, 
Fred Adler said : "I'm not going to tell you where we learned it. It 
was not a well-kept secret on the West Coast. To the best of my 
knowledge, the information did not come from Morvillo." Clearly, 
Data General plans to make Itkin's past an integral part of the present 
suit against Keronix. What DG does not say in ticking off Itkin's crimi- 
nal activities, however, is that the acts were committed in the service 
of the U.S. government. 

Chances are the fight between big DG and tiny Keronix will continue 
for years. The criminal investigation, after being stalled in a grand 
jury for two years, now may be opened anew by the Los Angeles 
district attorney. 

As for the civil case, neither side shows any sign of moving toward 
an out-of-court settlement. Says Laszlo Keresztury of Keronix; "This 
whole think is a pain. But if I let it pass by, I couldn't look at myself. 
I am too stubborn or too Hungarian." Snaps Fred Adler of Data 
General : "If I thought someone in our company did something wrong, 
I'd have settled a long time ago. But this is blackmail, and I don't pay 
blackmail." 

The Keronix processor is at the top. It is a clone of the Data General Nova. The indicator panel in the middle is not part of this system, but fills the gap where the Newport tape drive was originally installed nicely. The Diablo 44B disk drive at the bottom was commonly used with DG products. There is a new front panel sitting on top of the disk drive.
 
A normal Data General Nova system has the boards install from the right side. Youn need to slide the system out of the cabinet to replace boards. With this system the boards install from the front after the front panel is hinged out of the way.
 
Comments