We will never know what happened on that day. None of the witnesses can be considered reliable. Even if they consider their own accounts as honest, the eventual fallout would taint their memories of the events. The best we can hope for is documentation to support one hypothesis or another (e.g. contracts).
That said, I do agree the common account is both disrespectful and inaccurate. I never understood why people would believe that Gary Kildall or Dorthy McEwen would brush off a business meeting. They may not have been an empire builders, but they were successful business people who built a successful business.
> None of the witnesses can be considered reliable.
I find this to be a curious statement, as in not reliable in what way?
Gordon Eubanks company was acquired by Kildall and worked for them at the time. I found this interview to very interesting, he touches on those events and gives his perspective.
One thing that does seem almost certain is that, to whatever extent Kildall did intentionally skip or turn up late to the meeting, it was more likely an attempted power move or an expression of annoyance than the sort of genuine indifference or carelessness that the "Gary went flying" story usually tries to suggest. But naturally the IBM representatives would not have been happy to be deliberately flexed on by an SME owner, either.
That said, I do agree the common account is both disrespectful and inaccurate. I never understood why people would believe that Gary Kildall or Dorthy McEwen would brush off a business meeting. They may not have been an empire builders, but they were successful business people who built a successful business.