One important thing that needs to be mentioned is that, during this critical decision making process, none of those involved actually knew that Killdall would hand the world over to Bill Gates. At that time, the computer industry had not yet become a multi-billion dollar industry. Nor were the legal aspects surrounding the protection of computer software. Would that little aspect change the way Kildall made decisions? Could that difference between $50,000 and $500,000 or $5,000,000 change the way you dealt with IBM? I believe Kildall thought he was protecting his intellectual property and had no idea that by rejecting IBM he would in turn give Bill Gates the opportunity of a lifetime. Kildall's framing of gain or loss played an essential role in this decision-making process. In the framing effect, Kildall's choice of a sure thing over a risky choice is likened to gain or loss framing. The framing effect is a bias that causes people to make different decisions based on how options are presented. Within the sunk cost fallacy, Kildall may have used reasoning with these facts that his innovation could have been a loss to IBM, and taking that loss into consideration would have led to a further loss of his intellectual property which it couldn't be