brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/14/85)
I'm no Apple fan, but I am not so sure it is a good idea to jump to conclusions here. What's the essence of this issue? When GEM came out, it was clear to everybody, and even openly said, that it was a "mac-like" interface. Now, if this is the case, doesn't Apple deserve some reward (aside from flattery) for making something that somebody else copied? Does a line of code have to be stolen for an idea to be stolen? Now Apple is persuing this in the only way the law really provides, which is copyright. It's the same sort of thing as Pacman. The owners of Pacman copyrighted the image of the Pacman - you can copyright (and sometimes trademark) pictures. The sued clone makers for using that same image. Now it's clear that the GEM window is an attempt to emulate the Mac screen, so that's what they're going after. So they win on "look" although probably not on feel. Now of course Xerox is another story. But the Mac doesn't use the same sort of pictures as Xerox products like the star, and the Mac certainly wasn't claiming to be "like a Xerox". Now if Apple tries persuing claims to general ideas like "windows", "menus" and "pointing" that is another story. Their pull-down menu patent won't really survive. But this doesn't mean that you can try and copy their screen and not have to pay them some due. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
wjh@bonnie.UUCP (Bill Hery) (10/15/85)
I believe the basis of the current Apple suit is that Jobs was planning the new venture and recruiting Apple employees while he was still an Apple employee, in fact still the Chairman of the Board at Apple.
dave@circadia.UUCP (David Messer) (10/16/85)
> Now, if this is the case, doesn't Apple deserve some reward > (aside from flattery) for making something that somebody else copied? Don't forget the Apple stole most of the ideas in the mac (as well as quite a few engineers) from XEROX-PARC. Should XEROX sue Apple? > Now of course Xerox is another story. But the Mac doesn't use the same > sort of pictures as Xerox products like the star, and the Mac certainly > wasn't claiming to be "like a Xerox". No, Apple claims to have invented it all themself. Many people believe them. As far as looking like XEROX, take a look at some of the icons and compare them to the STAR. -- David Messer UUCP: ...ihnp4!circadia!dave FIDO: 14/415 (SYSOP)
usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (10/17/85)
In article <583@bonnie.UUCP> wjh@bonnie.UUCP (Bill Hery) writes: >I believe the basis of the current Apple suit is that Jobs was planning >the new venture and recruiting Apple employees while he was still >an Apple employee, in fact still the Chairman of the Board at Apple. Yes, I'm sure that Jobs was planning a new venture once he got cut out of Apple (in fact, if not quite yet in words). For quite some time Jobs was Chariman in name only, w/out any real powers. Doubtless he wasn't really happy in that capacity, and started thinking about a new venture. He offered to resign, then told some of his personal friends at Apple about his venture and asked them if they were interested, then tried a second time to resign. And Apple is sueing him because, as "chariman", he attempted to "steal away employees for a personal venture, in the corporate posistion he was in". I find this act by Apple pretty tactless and infantile. Peter Korn korn%ucbcory@Berkeley.ARPA P.S. In no way do I support Job's actions re: the Macintosh project; however that doesn't give Apple liscence to act in their current vengeful way.
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (10/17/85)
> I believe the basis of the current Apple suit is that Jobs was planning > the new venture and recruiting Apple employees while he was still > an Apple employee, in fact still the Chairman of the Board at Apple. It is also the case the Coporate Officers have more duties to the company and fewer rights than the average employee. This is called Feduciary Duty (I hope that is spelled close to right...). As a corporate officer, if Jobs did *ANYTHING* to diminish the competitiveness and income of Apple, he would be failing in this duty. At that point he could be fired and/or sued. The fact that he owns a large block of the stock does not diminish his duties to the other stockholders. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
bill@crystal.UUCP (10/18/85)
> For quite some time Jobs was > Chariman in name only, w/out any real powers. Doubtless he wasn't really > happy in that capacity, and started thinking about a new venture. He offered > to resign, then told some of his personal friends at Apple about his venture > and asked them if they were interested, then tried a second time to resign. I'm getting a little tired of this. I'm sure we can all cheer for the guy who started Apple in the garage with Woz, but we've all gotten a little older and (I hope) wiser since then. When you are on the board of a corporation (chairman, in fact), you are in the same position of responsibility to the shareholders as a bank trust officer is to the people that have money entrusted to him. There is a higher standard of behavior required, BOTH ethically and legally. If Jobs wants to take his money and go home, fine. Remember, he sold a LOT of his stock. If he wanted to run Apple forever, maybe he shouldn't have sold ANY of his original stock. Any adult (over 18, at least) who 'tries to resign' and can't is not competent; therefore, I find it hard to believe the posting quoted above. The ethical thing to do (and even that is borderline in some circles) is to resign, then do your plannin when you're no longer an employee or in another position of trust. ('fiduciary responsibility', if you like long words). Jobs did not do that, and as a consequence I have little respect for him. I hope Apple Computer nails him to the wall. Oh yes, I'd be interested in any reasoned replys. Flames to /dev/null,please. bill -- William Cox Computer Sciences Department University of Wisconsin, Madison WI bill@wisc.crys.edu ...{ihnp4,seismo,allegra}!uwvax!bill
korn@ucbcory.BERKELEY.EDU (Peter "Arrrgh" Korn) (10/19/85)
In article <516@crystal.UUCP> bill@crystal.UUCP writes: >> For quite some time Jobs was >> Chariman in name only, w/out any real powers. Doubtless he wasn't really >> happy in that capacity, and started thinking about a new venture. He offered >> to resign, then told some of his personal friends at Apple about his venture >> and asked them if they were interested, then tried a second time to resign. > >I'm getting a little tired of this. I'm sure we can all cheer for the >guy who started Apple in the garage with Woz, but we've all gotten a little >older and (I hope) wiser since then. > >When you are on the board of a corporation (chairman, in fact), you are >in the same position of responsibility to the shareholders as a bank >trust officer is to the people that have money entrusted to him. There >is a higher standard of behavior required, BOTH ethically and legally. >If Jobs wants to take his money and go home, fine. Remember, he >sold a LOT of his stock. If he wanted to run Apple forever, maybe he >shouldn't have sold ANY of his original stock. > Unless I'm reading my articles wrong, Jobs got fed up with his "position of responsibility" which gave him as much power as any other glamorous figurehead, and over time decided to get out. Yes, there is definitely a higher standard of behavior that is required; but I too would be pretty dizzy after people who I thought (admitedly though my own blindness) fully supported me cut me off from my own corporation. John Scully fully knew that Jobs might well start a company on his own, and draw away a number of important/key engineers at Apple to start this new company. If this happened while Jobs was in such an important position of *power* as the *chairman* of Apple (with the job of keeping hands off everything), then it's a legal loophole in Apple's favor, but who's morals are to be questioned here? In no way does my heart to out to "poor, naive Jobs", don't get me wrong there. I'm just disappointed that Apple is so bloodthursty to sue Jobs for something they knew he would do when the took Apple away from him. They have the company, what the hell else do they want? Revenge for not making the Mac the way they wanted it to be made? > >I hope Apple Computer nails him to the wall. > I hope you find the new Apple more satisfying; I daresay we'll have a bit less frustration and anger. Peter Korn cc-20%ucbcory@Berkeley None of the above opinions/ideas/expressions/mannerisms/etc. are those of whoever I might supposedly be representing (except possibly myself, of course). And even then, there's some room for doubt!
jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (10/20/85)
In article <10717@ucbvax.ARPA> korn@ucbcory.UUCP (Peter "Arrrgh" Korn) writes: >> >>When you are on the board of a corporation (chairman, in fact), you are >>in the same position of responsibility to the shareholders as a bank >>trust officer is to the people that have money entrusted to him. There >>is a higher standard of behavior required, BOTH ethically and legally. >> >and over time decided to get out. Yes, there is definitely a higher standard >of behavior that is required; but I too would be pretty dizzy after people > >me off from my own corporation. John Scully fully knew that Jobs might well >start a company on his own, and draw away a number of important/key engineers >at Apple to start this new company. If this happened while Jobs was in such >an important position of *power* as the *chairman* of Apple (with the job of >keeping hands off everything), then it's a legal loophole in Apple's favor, >but who's morals are to be questioned here? > >I'm just disappointed that Apple is so bloodthursty to sue Jobs for something >they knew he would do when the took Apple away from him. They have the >company, what the hell else do they want? Revenge for not making the Mac the >way they wanted it to be made? >> A stockholder suit is no fun, and I'm sure that Apple's lawyers told Scully, et all, 'If you don't sue him for this violation of his fiduciary responsibility, some stockholders will sue him, AND YOU.' or words to this effect. A practical reason also, with the suit holding up whatever Jobs is doing it's unlikely any more people will jump ship to go there. Meanwhile, conditions at Apple will stabilize and people who might have followed Jobs, might decide Apple was still a good place to work. So take your pick, neither of these reasons is 'bloodthirsty' and there are thousands of non-bloodthirsty reasons out there. Pick your own, I'm sure Apple has a reason of their own. As far as suits go, I'VE always wondered why Woz didn't sue Jobs over the resraint of trade issue when Jobs told Frog Designs they couldn't work for Woz. He's too nice maybe? -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200 "... Don't sue me, I'm just the piano player!...."
ravi@eneevax.UUCP (Ravi Kulkarni) (10/21/85)
In article <184@circadia.UUCP> dave@circadia.UUCP (David Messer) writes: >> Now, if this is the case, doesn't Apple deserve some reward >> (aside from flattery) for making something that somebody else copied? > >Don't forget the Apple stole most of the ideas in the mac (as well >as quite a few engineers) from XEROX-PARC. Should XEROX sue Apple? > >> Now of course Xerox is another story. But the Mac doesn't use the same >> sort of pictures as Xerox products like the star, and the Mac certainly >> wasn't claiming to be "like a Xerox". > >No, Apple claims to have invented it all themself. Many people >believe them. > >As far as looking like XEROX, take a look at some of the icons and >compare them to the STAR. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't XEROX sell the AT&T PC running GEM as their low end office automation machine? If true apparently XEROX doesn't give much validity to Apple's copyrights, patents, etc. -- ARPA: eneevax!ravi@maryland UUCP: [seismo,allegra]!umcp-cs!eneevax!ravi