SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (03/30/88)
Steven Tessler <mahendo!jplgodo!wlbr!scgvaxd!ashtate!dbase!tessler@ELROY.JPL.NASA.GOV> writes: >The issue of "Look and Feel" being copyrightable has not been established >concretely. The Lotus suit against '123' clone 'VP Planner' by Paperback >Software is still in litigation. Actually, it's the Broderbond suit that's at issue here (the one Lotus used as a precedent). Little matter since it IS on appeal. The text of Apple's filing was posted. Perhaps it would be better to read it before running on about Xerox's prior work etc. Apple's specific complaint is that Windows violates a specific agreement by Microsoft regarding similarity of appearance with the Mac interface. I'm not a lawyer, but I did see Print Master before the Broderbond case was filed and my reaction at the time was "what a rip off" (even though the resolution on Print Master's graphics was better and there was an additional feature or two). I really can't predict whether the legal detail of my perception will be upheld on appeal. With respect to Apple's suit; it seems the issue is somewhat analogous to what my happen if you or I started a fast food burger and fries place named McDougall's (spelled differently, right?) with yellow (rather than "golden") arches and hired Bozo the Clown (predates the competitor's symbol) to appear in advertising. How close Windows is to that situation (in the eyes of a court) probably is more than an intuitive obvious or frivolous question. From what I've perused in the trade press (haven't had time to read the details yet), the suit does threaten to cast the Presentation Manager into legal limbo (perhap beyond the date when Microsoft has it ready to release <unlikely as that seems :-)>). Was that part of Apple's intent? Is the Pacific Ocean wide? --------------------- Disclaimer: I like my opinions better than my employer's anyway... (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) ARPA: sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Murphy A. Sewall BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM School of Business Admin. UUCP: ...ihnp4!psuvax1!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL University of Connecticut
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (04/01/88)
"L. Brett Glass" <well!rogue@lll-lcc.llnl.GOV> >Don't underestimate John Sculley. In order to rise to the top of a >mature company such as Pepsi, one must almost certainly use unethical >tactics. The same kind of tactics one might use to, say, depose Steve >Jobs, bully DRI, or blackmail Microsoft. Say what? Were I a major Apple stockholder I'd have Sculley's head on a platter if he DIDN'T file suit to protect the company's interest. Whether Apple is correct or not is at least arguable and a matter for a legal verdict. If you think ordinary "hard-nosed" enterprise is "unethical" then you haven't got all your oars in the water (doomed to a life of going in circles and getting nowhere). Depose Steve Jobs? Wasn't he the fellow who took a microprocessor with a 16Mbyte address space and put it into an unexpandable 512K computer? Once again, it would have been irresponsible not to relieve Jobs of command. He'd done his inspirational bit to launch Apple, but the long run interest of the firm required a manager (when jobs left Apple stock was down to $15 -- since then, it's split 2 for 1 and is selling around 40 <a more than fivefold increase in value>). Blackmail Microsoft!! Where were you when Microsoft threatened to revoke Apple's license to use Applesoft? Bill Gates isn't a wimp; it's a fair contest. If you think DRI had a tough time, go to the library and look up the history of Lestoil (a little company that invented the first liquid household cleaner, made the product category popular, and was promptly buried and bankrupted by Proctor & Gamble). Business is no place for the faint of heart. Perhaps you'd rather the Marine Corp ?-) --------------------- Disclaimer: I like my opinions better than my employer's anyway... (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) ARPA: sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Murphy A. Sewall BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM School of Business Admin. UUCP: ...ihnp4!psuvax1!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL University of Connecticut
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (04/04/88)
Peter da Silva <tness7!tness1!nuchat!sugar!peter@bellcore.bellcore.COM> writes: >Subject: Re: BOYCOTT APPLE >In article <1513@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >> But look at other industries. I can't publish a comic book about a man >> who flies, is super strong and can see through walls. It doesn't >> matter what my character's origin is, or what the plots of the stories >> are. That same law might well apply in other cases. > >Sure you can. There are two major players in the comics game, plus a bunch >of smaller companies... If memory serves (and I'm sure it does in this case since I date back to the era in question), there once was a comic character named - *SHAZAM <poof>* Captain Marvel. Super powers (check), cape (check), whimppy alter ego (check), "Achilles heel" (check - in his case he could be subdued when he hadn't yet said SHAZAM and become super-duper). He's not around anymore BECAUSE DC Comics sued him out of existence for copyright violation. It's a good analogy, I'd guess (not being a lawyer). You can create all manner of super heroes, but you can't simply "clone" Superman with only superficial differences (different color costume, different way of "changing" from alter ego to super ego *I couldn't resist*. In response to another comment on the subject of Apple's suit: Apple's problem with New Wave is that it is, essentially - contractually if I remember what I read in Apple's court filing - an implementation of Windows 2.03 (which is really what Apple is suing about). According to the trade press, IBM's Presentation Manager (which only IBM and a few beta testers whose "lips are sealed" have actually seen) is essentially Windows 2.03. I seem to recall reading that IBM told developers some months ago to design to Windows specs (implying that resulting programs would be compatible with Presentation Manager or easily transposable into compatible code). That's what makes Apple's suit so interesting, third party developers don't know if, or how much or which way, Presentation Manager may have to be altered to avoid copyright violation. If necessary IBM (and probably Microsoft) can pay for any alterations that must be made. It's not so clear to third party developers that they can afford to invest in software that may have to be completely reworked before it can be sold. So, Apple not only slows down Presentation Manager, but also the arrival of software designed to run in that environment. It appears that Apple wins even if the courts rule that Windows doesn't "look and feel" like a Macintosh in the same sense that Print Master looked and felt like Print Shop. Meanwhile, IBM will work on getting OS/2 and the Presentation Manager to fit into less than 3 Mbytes so there'll be a market for it (if you think it takes ProDOS 16 awhile to get ready to go, wait'll you try Presentation Manager 1.0 on a 286 machine!!!). --------------------- Disclaimer: I like my opinions better than my employer's anyway... (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) ARPA: sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Murphy A. Sewall BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM School of Business Admin. UUCP: ...ihnp4!psuvax1!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL University of Connecticut