kf@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (03/25/88)
[ This is a long discussion which belongs more in Info-mac than Info-apple but since the reactions to the Apple suit are on this newsgroup, here goes ] I've read much of what has gone by on this newsgroup regarding the Apple suit and much of it sounds uninformed, reactionary, and is fairly useless sarcasm. Except for a few, I doubt many of those making these comments have used either the Mac, Windows, or other windowing systems. So before all of you jump on the bandwagon and condemn Apple for its suit against Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard, I think we should attempt to learn more about exactly what Apple is and is not trying to defend. First of all, this action by Apple is not some spontaneous emotional reaction. I'm certain that Apple has carefully planned its approach and calculated what the costs and benefits of this suit are. This is not something done lightly. (Don't you think the Apple Board of Directors had to agree to do this?) First, whether right or wrong, we could tell this was coming: it's Apple corporate policy. Jean-Louis Gassee's speech at MacWorld Expo in January on protecting and controlling the use of proprietary "technology" and not licensing the "crown jewels" just confirmed the corporate policy, which was first displayed by Apple's previous actions against DRI and Microsoft. Apple's refusal to use Display Postscript in its computers is just another example. Apple did license Postscript from Adobe for use in its laser printers, probably because QuickDraw wasn't ready (and maybe because it planned to buy Adobe??). But the difference here is one between the computer and a peripheral. The peripheral is not the core of Apple (excuse the pun). So what has Apple to gain and what has it to lose? If Apple wins, it slows down the development of the Presentation Manager (PM), assuming that PM is being developed around the concept and technology behind Microsoft Windows. But in any case, win or lose, the PM will probably get developed; it will just be more like other windowing systems, maybe the MIT X-Window System, Sun NEWS, or another workstation window system (Symbolics, Apollo, etc). And that's the point Apple is trying to make: what's the difference between X-Window or NEWS, and Windows/HP New Wave that would cause Apple to sue Windows/New Wave and not any other window technology manufacturer? If you have used both a Mac (or IIGS) and a Sun, you can clearly distinguish between the two interfaces. (I've used a Mac, Sun, and PC with Windows, but not any machine with X-Window or New Wave.) It's hard to point out exactly what is different between the Mac and Sun: although both use a graphical interface consisting of windows, icons, menus, etc., and a "point and click" mouse; the steps you take, the process of accomplishing a task differs. Can we really say the same about Windows? Does not Windows seem to be a duplicate of the Mac/IIGS Toolbox/System/Finder, with some slight changes such as the location of icons, character-oriented text, different menu operation, and some added functionality but built onto the same basic "concept/idea"? Next, we don't see Apple suing all the companies that write applications under Windows (though they may in the future??). What's different about New Wave than other applications? Well, based on the HP ads, New Wave is not an application like a spreadsheet or a word processor, but it's an application that acts as an environment like the Mac Finder. From the HP ad itself: "An application environment based on MS-DOS and MS Windows 2.0 that lets your people access, manipulate and share information throughout the system. Effortlessly. By means of simple, intuitive icons. Pull-down menus. A "mouse." And a common interface across workstation applications." Apple is not suing over a particular implementation of menus (pull-down), or windows (scroll bars, elevators), or icons (trash cans, documents, folders) or the mouse, but rather it is suing over the "Apple Desktop Interface", as it has come to be known. It is saying that the resulting audiovisual interface, which embodies the Apple concept, in the Mac (and IIGS) graphical interface implementation is being used by Microsoft and HP. Microsoft (and DRI) has acknowledged that much by licensing parts of this interface from Apple. In summary, there are many ways to conceive and implement a graphical interface as evidenced by those developed by workstation manufacturers and Apple is saying that the Windows/New Wave combination is not any different in concept (as represented by its implementation as an audiovisual product) than its own. True, Apple took many parts (menus, icons, windows) of the graphical interface from Xerox PARC and its implementation on the Star. Did Apple's subsequent implementation on the Lisa use the same graphical system concept that was present in the Star? I haven't used a Star so I don't know. Many have said that Apple has built enough upon the original Xerox interface to distinguish the two. Others say that Apple bought the rights. I don't know, but if neither is true, then sure, Xerox could sue Apple. But that's Xerox's prerogative, not Apple's. Does Apple lose its right to defend what it believes is its concept just because Xerox doesn't sue? Okay, back to what happens if Apple loses. If Apple loses, it opens the way for others to build graphics interfaces similar to (and even based upon) the Apple interface. And it probably opens the way for further lawsuits, which can be "good" if and only if it further clarifies what the copyright laws mean in terms of software, intellectual property, and audiovisual interface. But that is precisely the reason why Apple is suing now. It needs to know what it can protect and what it can't. It makes a difference in corporate direction and strategy. Look at it from Apple's point of view. If Apple does nothing, others will build interfaces similar to Apple's anyway. It is clear that Apple doesn't intend to get into the PC commodity business. It's not going to be the quickest to build the fastest and cheapest hardware. That gets you as far as a clone maker. Apple is a company that claims to sell "systems". If a systems company wants to have long-term success, not only must it be competitive in terms of the basics such as service, quality and reliability, it must add something of distinct value (whether real or simply perceived) to its "system" in order to differentiate it from all the others. If it can't do that, its in the commodity business. Apple differentiates its "systems" from those of competitors through their interfaces. The Mac is not so much defined by its hardware or its software, but instead by its interface concept (which is a result of the hardware and software implementations). It doesn't claim to have the fastest or the cheapest hardware, but it does claim to have an easy-to-learn and easy-to-use graphical system interface. Take away the interface, and Apple has a computer that may be no better than any other. Let a competitor have the same interface (not necessarily the same software) and Apple gets into the hardware commodity business. OR Apple will need to become basically a software company and become the first to improve on its software in order to distinguish it from its competitors by adding functionality or speed, or lowering cost. At this point, I know people will say but that's the American way - that's what competition is all about. Yes, it is the American way, but Apple says develop and implement your own graphical interface concept and then we'll compete. If you believe that Windows/New Wave is sufficiently different IN CONCEPT and implementation, then you will find Apple to be the loser in its suit. (Nobody is claiming that the code implementation for Windows/New Wave is similar to Apple's. We all know there are many ways to accomplish the same result with different code.) But Apple says that Windows/New Wave is not different in concept, though it may differ cosmetically in implementation. As evidenced by the interfaces of other workstation companies such as Sun and by the X-Window System, Apple does not claim nor does it have a monopoly on graphical interface systems concepts or implementations. So now we get to the basic legal question: Can you protect such a concept (and in this case, its resulting visual interface) through copyrights and patents of the implementation? Or can you only protect specific code, in which case you can't really protect the concept? This is what Apple wants to know. This is what the courts will decide. I have yet to decide myself. I have read what people have written and most of it has been useless with regards to making an informed decision. Let's look at some other issues. Everyone talks about the stifling of creativity and innovation. Well, if someone was really innovative, they would come up with a completely new graphical system interface, not like the Mac, that would be much better than the Mac. There are many other ways. Do you see Sun saying the Mac way is better? What about X-Window? The Mac interface is not the be-all and end-all. I've seen some better methods of operation on other workstations than the Mac way. Taking the Mac interface, shifting some things around, and porting it to another CPU is not my idea of creativity or innovation. If someone was innovative, they would add something new to the interface, but this already happens in terms of add-on products, utilities, desk-accessories, and even in applications in the Mac world. For example, Andy Hertzfeld, an original but no longer a member of the Mac team continues to add new ideas and programs to enhance the Mac interface. Well, now that I've had my two (well, ten) cents worth, I get to hear everyone else's reasoned replies. Thanks for bearing with me. Kevin (kf@mitre-bedford) <usual disclaimers>
ram%shukra@Sun.COM (Renu Raman, Taco Bell Microsystems) (03/27/88)
In article <8803251409.AA17752@mitre-bedford.ARPA> kf@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA writes: > >First, whether right or wrong, we could tell this was coming: it's Apple >corporate policy. Jean-Louis Gassee's speech at MacWorld Expo in January on >protecting and controlling the use of proprietary "technology" and not >licensing the "crown jewels" just confirmed the corporate policy, which was >first displayed by Apple's previous actions against DRI and Microsoft. Just a comment associated with that. Apple would like to get a fix on "what is copyrightable" and send a message to all PC manufacturers to stay off the Mac interface. If not, it will be no time before a clone from Taiwan/Japan with Mac look alike Windows will be at your doorstep thereby eroding into apple's market share in that segment. This is particulary true when the above statement by Gasse, has been very widely beleived to be an indirect reference to Sun Licensing its RISC processor technology - esp. to offshore companies. DISCLAIMER: All statements made here are my own. It does not reflect my company's opinion