W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL (Keith Petersen) (10/05/88)
SAN JOSE, CA - August, 1988 - After months of postponements, Hewlett- Packard responded to Apple Computer's "look and feel" copyright suit last week, denying all claims of infringement and countersuing Apple for unfair business practices and violations of the anti-trust laws. In documents filed with the U.S. District Court here, HP maintains that the Mac's graphical interface is based on work done by other companies - in particular, Xerox Corp. The documents further state that Apple obtained copyright registrations on the screen display fraudulently by not disclosing to the U.S. Copyright Office that the Mac's display was derived from Xerox's work. "In copyrights and patents, if there is prior art, it has to be reported at submission", said Bob Frankenberg, group general manager for the information systems group at HP. "Prior art, whether protected or in the public domain, can make your patent or copyright invalid." In its countersuit, HP went one step beyond Microsoft in claiming that Apple's suit violates the Sherman Antitrust act. Because the Macintosh is the leader in the area of graphical user interfaces -- a development that gives the manufacturer an edge in the market -- HP believes the suit is only a "sham" designed to stall and injure New Wave in the market. Already, several Hewlett-Packard customers and developers have decided to wait to see how the suit is resolved before buying or developing for New Wave, HP's Frankenberg said. But he would not specify how many customers or the value of the purchases that are involved. While the defenses and counterclaims are predictable, HP's allegations of lost business may be very serious for Apple, said Doug Derwin, a copyright lawyer in Santa Clara, California. "That gives them something that ordinarily does not exist in copyright cases: hard damages." If Apple loses the copyright case, it may end up having to pay HP three times its lost sales, amounting to perhaps millions of dollars in damages, Derwin said. An Apple spokeswoman said the company believes HP's claims are without merit. Apple suffered a setback earlier in the week when the judge disqualified one of Apple's law firms - Fenwick, Davis & West - citing conflict of interest. HP, which is also a Fenwick client, asked the court to disqualify the firm in early June. With a tentative trial date for the Microsoft license issue just four months away, the loss of Fenwick, Davis & West could be a serious blow for Apple, Derwin said. "Apple is going into the most difficult, dangerous part of the suit just when it has lost the firm that has been doing most of the work in this area for five years," he said. Apple Computer denied that the ruling will have any effect on its case. --Keith Petersen Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL Uucp: {ames,decwrl,harvard,rutgers,ucbvax,uunet}!simtel20.army.mil!w8sdz
jbrown@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jordan Brown) (10/07/88)
In article <> W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL (Keith Petersen) writes: >In documents filed with the U.S. District Court here, HP maintains that >the Mac's graphical interface is based on work done by other companies - >in particular, Xerox Corp. The documents further state that Apple >obtained copyright registrations on the screen display fraudulently by >not disclosing to the U.S. Copyright Office that the Mac's display was >derived from Xerox's work. My understanding is that the Apple patent is on the pull-down menus, not on a "graphical interface". If you examine the Xerox work (or for that matter Sun et al) you find really very little resemblance to the Apple work. On the other hand, comparing Mac with MS-Windows, you find a great deal of similarity. (A Mac user could move to MSW with no effort; the same is definitely *not* true about moving to X windows, for instance.) Unless you consider Apple to own all bitmap interfaces using mouses as pointing devices, they conflict only with a few other products - notably MSW, formerly GEM. (Take a look at how little DRI had to change GEM to make Apple happy.)