jonathan@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Jonathan Altman) (04/01/88)
Here's a scenario in the whole lawsuit that hasn't been (to the best of my knowledge) put forward yet. I put it forward because this discussion of Apple's lawsuit on the net seems to make the debate a black-or-white issue where Apple will either win or lose absolutely. I will ignore several decidecly important issues for the sake of brevity and start with my hypothesis: maybe Apple merely wants to assure that they get some fraction of the PROFIT that HP and Microsoft (and IBM) may derive from their sales of products which derive their appeal as products from Apple's development of "look-and-feel". I will also now make a disclaimer(since this article is so long): I am not a law student, so my legal knowledge comes from my absorption of legal knowledge (largely through my father and one uncle who are lawyers), and I have not carefully or fully developed this article. What this means is that I am offering what I believe to be a rational argument based on my not exactly perfect view of fact. I would like to discuss this issue, but not respond to flames about my facts, opinions, or ignorance. With that in mind, here's the support for my hypothesis: 1. The adversarial process our legal system is based on thrives on the reconciliation of opposite points of view. Apple has started at one point of view. The legal process will reconcile this view with its opposite, resulting in some sort of agreement, somewhere in the spectrum of these two views. Apple, in bringing the suit, has to tow the line of this process and start from a polar position. I truly believe that Apple wants/intends/will settle somewhere considerably short of complete victory in its suit. They just can't say as much publicly(would you actually announce in a press conference that you'd settle for $1million dollars in your $10 million dollar liability suit. Although it may be a true statement, you'd seriously ruin your bargaining position, as well as probably get your case thrown out of court) 2. What Apple would be attempting to do if it won its case outright would probably lead to its competitors seeking antitrust proceedings. They would probably have a good case against Apple, too. 3. The precedent set in the IBM vs. large-Japanese-mainframe-maker who copied look and feel (and whose name escapes me now) of IBM OS, without copying the code means that if Apple pushes this case, they may very well win a right to a percentage of the income created by borrowers of their developments. These three points lead me to believe that Apple is pursuing this case to attempt to garner some fraction of the earnings generated by their competitors' products which borrow on Apple's developments with the Macintosh. I am ignoring the validity of Apple's rights to profit from those developments, mostly because determination of that right is the central issue which will determine if Apple has a legitimate case at all, but ALSO AS IMPORTANTLY will decide to what extent Apple has a right to derive profits from things included in the Mac OS, and what things are considered Apple's property. I would think Apple would be happier the bigger it won, but I do NOT think anybody truly believes (even in Apple) that they will garner absolute rights to rectangular windows, pull-down menus, etc., just those things that look to some extent(decided in the process) like those on the Macintosh(like a menu bar at the top of the screen with a menu item for File controls, followed by edit controls, etc.) In re-reading this, I think I managed to succinctly do a better job presenting my hypothesis than I thought. I look forward to hearing responses. Either open news discussion (preferable, to me personally) or e-mail(which I'm a little too busy to want to deal with, but might make the net happier). Jonathan Altman '88 jonathan@eleazar.Dartmouth.edu Database Administrator (ihnp4,decvax)!dartvax!eleazar!jonathan Dartmouth Dante Project jonathan@eleazar.UUCP (I think) HB 6087 voice: 603-646-2633 Hanover, NH 03755 Disclaimer(#2): My opinions in no way reflect the opinions of my employer and alma mater, Darmouth College.
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (04/04/88)
In article <8501@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU>, jonathan@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Jonathan Altman) writes: > 3. The precedent set in the IBM vs. large-Japanese-mainframe-maker > who copied look and feel (and whose name escapes me now) of IBM OS, > without copying the code means that if Apple pushes this case, they > may very well win a right to a percentage of the income created by > borrowers of their developments. If you're talking about the suit between IBM and Hitachi, you've got it horribly wrong. Hitachi was caught buying stolen IBM technical documents from undercover FBI men. The documents reportedly contained technical information on IBM computer systems; the accounts I read did not specify hardware or software. The press probably wouldn't know the difference anyhow. As far as I know (and I read pretty extensively) there have not yet been ANY court settlements on the idea of copyrighting "look & feel." There have been several lawsuits, all settled out of court. Again, if you know of one, please post relavent information, including a good published source - I'd certainly like to study it. -- /\ - "Against Stupidity, - {backbones}! /\/\ . /\ - The Gods Themselves - utah-cs!utah-gr! / \/ \/\/ \ - Contend in Vain." - uplherc!sp7040! / U i n T e c h \ - Schiller - obie!wes
govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) (04/07/88)
> In article <8501@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU>, jonathan@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Jonathan Altman) writes: > > 3. The precedent set in the IBM vs. large-Japanese-mainframe-maker > > who copied look and feel (and whose name escapes me now) of IBM OS, > > without copying the code means that if Apple pushes this case, they > > may very well win a right to a percentage of the income created by > > borrowers of their developments. > > If you're talking about the suit between IBM and Hitachi, you've got > it horribly wrong. Hitachi was caught buying stolen IBM technical > documents from undercover FBI men. The documents reportedly contained > technical information on IBM computer systems; the accounts I read did > not specify hardware or software. The press probably wouldn't know > the difference anyhow. > The Japanese company was Fujitsu, the largest computer company in Japan. Hitachi stole IBM hard drive secrets.