madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (09/18/88)
In article <1894@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> anand@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Anand Iyengar) writes: |In article <1988Sep13.185106.14193@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> sarathy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Rajiv Sarathy) writes: | Au contraire: it's good for Apple, who stole it from Xerox, who's |to weak to sue them... Apple bought the technology from Xerox, they didn't steal it. Then they improved it a lot. Suddenly everyone is saying "hey, neat, let's do that" and Apple's upset. That's business. On the legal side of the issue, check out this month's UNIX Review for a lawyer's opinion of the lawsuit. He believes, and I agree, that Apple is most likely going to win. Microsoft licensed technology for Windows 1.0, not 2.03. The license mentioned *specific* products and had no continuation clause (eg "and subsequent versions"), which is not so good for Microsoft. The article is recommended if you want a lawyer's standpoint in layman's language. jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
sarathy@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Rajiv Sarathy) (09/19/88)
In article <24945@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: >In article <1894@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> anand@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Anand Iyengar) writes: >|In article <1988Sep13.185106.14193@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> sarathy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Rajiv Sarathy) writes: >| Au contraire: it's good for Apple, who stole it from Xerox, who's >|to weak to sue them... > >Apple bought the technology from Xerox, they didn't steal it. Then >they improved it a lot. Suddenly everyone is saying "hey, neat, let's >do that" and Apple's upset. That's business. > Hey wait a minute!! I didn't write that, I said nothing about Xerox. The lines you have above were written by someone else (Mohan somebody-or-other, I believe.) Get your facts right, and stop quoting people you don't mean to quote. ie. Learn to use your editor correctly. What I said was that Apple has every right to sue Microsoft for what's theirs. Mohan somebody-or-other, incorrectly I gather, stated the above, (what you say I said). Maybe I should sue you for mis-quoting me in public. Maybe Mohan somebody-or- other should sue you for taking a piece of his article (which he automatically has copyright for in Canada) and not giving him any credit!! :-)) --Raj ----- Disclaimer: I'm just an undergrad. ----- Email address: sarathy@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu -- NOT what's above
bob@acornrc.UUCP (Bob Weissman) (09/20/88)
In article <24945@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) writes: > In article <1894@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> anand@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Anand Iyengar) writes: > |In article <1988Sep13.185106.14193@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> sarathy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Rajiv Sarathy) writes: > | Au contraire: it's good for Apple, who stole it from Xerox, who's > |to weak to sue them... > > Apple bought the technology from Xerox, they didn't steal it. I worked at Xerox at the time the Apple Lisa was developed, and I can assure you that Apple did not buy anything from Xerox at that time. It has long puzzled me why Xerox let Apple get away with this. "Stole" is probably too harsh a word, but "derived" certainly applies. > Then they improved it a lot. This is a matter of opinion. It is also false. (:-) -- Bob Weissman Internet: bob@acornrc.uucp UUCP: ...!{ ames | decwrl | oliveb | pyramid }!acornrc!bob Arpanet: bob%acornrc.uucp@ames.arc.nasa.gov
anand@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Anand Iyengar) (09/20/88)
In article <1988Sep19.131958.28665@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> sarathy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Rajiv Sarathy) writes: >Hey wait a minute!! I didn't write that, I said nothing about Xerox. The >lines you have above were written by someone else (Mohan somebody-or-other, I >believe.) Official apology: Sorry. The software we use here prepends names on postings. It also advances to the next message after aborted sends, which is ok too, except when I don't notice, and the above happens. >Maybe I should sue you for mis-quoting me in public. Maybe Mohan somebody-or- >other should sue you for taking a piece of his article (which he automatically >has copyright for in Canada) and not giving him any credit!! :-)) You don't work for IBM or Apple, do you (:-)?? Anand.
anand@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Anand Iyengar) (09/20/88)
In article <24945@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: >Apple bought the technology from Xerox, they didn't steal it. Then >they improved it a lot. Suddenly everyone is saying "hey, neat, let's This depends on who you talk to (possibly dependant on who they work for). What I've been told is that Steve Jobs toured Xerox, liked what he saw, and later hired a number of the people on the developement team. Anyone know for sure? Anand.