timothym@tekigm2.TEK.COM (Timothy D Margeson) (03/25/88)
Hi,
Okay, my two cents on the Apple vs. HP/Microsoft. Some have mentioned that
IBM should also get into the suit, offering support in the attorneys ring.
This sounds good on the surface, until you realize a small point in the
suit filed. A jury.
What this means is that all Apple has to do is prove, in layman's terms, and
layman's eyes, the MAC interface and Windows 2.X and New Wave look alike.
This is all that is required to win a copyright case.
Now, add to this trial by jury a small, helpless company like Apple, being
robbed of it's profits by the GIANTs MicroSoft, Hewlett Packard (and just
think if IBM were invovled). Oh, that poor Apple (say's the jury).
So, you can be sure Apple will want momma joe, a farmers wife from Froth,
Kentucky on the jury, but not tom, a computer literate from Houston, Texas.
Be sure, Apple WILL be able to select the jury, or at least deny ANY of those
possible jury members whom might understand the real differences they should
be looking for in a copyright case.
Apple probable will win this case, but even if they don't, they can then use
the case as a precent and copy like hell anything they want. So, it's a win
win, case for Apple, and lose lose for HP and MS. IBM too for that matter.
A third benefit from the case, win or lose, is that Apple will slow down any
developement of Presentation Manager, 3rt party Windows applications and the
like.
Apple is not being dumb by any means. Also remember they won a similar suit
against Digital Research. SO a precent in Apples favor already exists. Another
case, similar to this, was Microstuff (Crosstalk) vs. Mirror (a Crosstalk
clone). Microstuff won on the look and feel aspects of the case, lost on the
aspects. So Mirror was changed so that the screens didn't look like Crosstalks,
but everything else worked the same. Including the script language.
--
Tim Margeson (206)253-5240
PO Box 3500 d/s C1-937 @@ 'Who said that?'
Vancouver, WA. 98668
{amd..hplabs}cae780!tektronix!tekigm2!timothym (this changes daily)lupin3@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (-=/ Larry Hastings /=-) (03/27/88)
+-In article <2722@tekigm2.TEK.COM>, timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) wrote:- +---------- | | What [having a jury] means is that all Apple has to do is prove, in layman's | terms, and layman's eyes, the MAC interface and Windows 2.X and New Wave look | alike. This is all that is required to win a copyright case. | | Now, add to this trial by jury a small, helpless company like Apple, being | robbed of it's profits by the GIANTs MicroSoft, Hewlett Packard (and just | think if IBM were invovled). Oh, that poor Apple (say's the jury). | | So, you can be sure Apple will want momma joe, a farmers wife from Froth, | Kentucky on the jury, but not tom, a computer literate from Houston, Texas. | Be sure, Apple WILL be able to select the jury, or at least deny ANY of those | possible jury members whom might understand the real differences they should | be looking for in a copyright case. | +---------- I doubt that the denizens of Froth, KT would ever have _heard_ of Microsoft; they would probably be somewhat aware of Hewlett-Packard (oh yeah, they make calculators, don't they?), and of course they would know who IBM was (that IS, IF they get involved in the suit). On the other hand, I'm sure that very nearly every American has heard of Apple, if not because of Apple itself (Time, Newsweek, ads during the Superbowl) then because of the people (the super-rich Woz, and the super-wierd-and-rich Jobs, and the whole rocking the boat because of Sculley). (Yes, I know that Bill Gates has more money than both Jobs and Woz combined, and YOU know that, but those people in Froth don't know that.) Also, according to (and my roommate's) my memory of High School Government (which was not, unfortunately, long ago); a jury for a copyright dispute is a 12 man jury, of which _BOTH_ sides are allowed to kick out some small number of possible jurors. And may I add that the suit was filed in San Jose, so we will probably have jurors from _San_Jose_; and not from all over the globe (as this person seems to think...?). +---------- | | Apple probable will win this case, but even if they don't, they can then use | the case as a precent and copy like hell anything they want. So, it's a win | win, case for Apple, and lose lose for HP and MS. IBM too for that matter. | A third benefit from the case, win or lose, is that Apple will slow down any | developement of Presentation Manager, 3rt party Windows applications and the | like. | +---------- What would Apple want to copy? They already have everyone _else_ copying _them_... True, it _may_ slow down the _release_ (probably not the _development_, they'd rather change it than slow it down at this point). +---------- | | Apple is not being dumb by any means. Also remember they won a similar suit | against Digital Research. SO a precent in Apples favor already exists. Another | +---------- Apple didn't _win_ that; they settled out of court. I don't think that case will help Apple; the only thing it could do is hurt them (and not much). +---------- | Tim Margeson (206)253-5240 | {amd..hplabs}cae780!tektronix!tekigm2!timothym (this changes daily) +---------- -- /|\ /|\ .. . . . . . . . . . . | |\| |\| .. . . . . . . . . . . |/|\|/|\|/|| _ _ _ _ |_| _ _ |_ -__ _ _ARPA: lupin3@ucscb.ucsc.EDU | |/| |/|L_ (_\( ( (_/ | |(_\_) (_ || )(_)_)UUCP: *!ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!lupin3 \|/ \|/ larry / hastings _/ BITNET: lupin3@ucscb@ucscc.BITNET MetaWare Inc "I saved Esquire readers from exploding pies." --Michael J. Fox Sail the High C! Disclaimer:[MetaWare, UCSC] -> opinion != lhastings -> opinion
brent@rtech.UUCP (Brent Williams) (03/29/88)
From article <2722@tekigm2.TEK.COM>, by timothym@tekigm2.TEK.COM (Timothy D Margeson): > Now, add to this trial by jury a small, helpless company like Apple, being ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Come on. The quarter just ended, apple announced $1 billion in revenue. I bet Hewlett Packard is only about $6-8 billion per year, not that much bigger than Apple. Also, microsoft only about $300 million. They might try to capitalize on the "2 guys in a garage image" but an attorney for the other guys would have no trouble pulling this apart. > robbed of it's profits by the GIANTs MicroSoft, Hewlett Packard (and just > think if IBM were invovled). Oh, that poor Apple (say's the jury). > > So, you can be sure Apple will want momma joe, a farmers wife from Froth, > Kentucky on the jury, but not tom, a computer literate from Houston, Texas. > Be sure, Apple WILL be able to select the jury, or at least deny ANY of those > possible jury members whom might understand the real differences they should > be looking for in a copyright case. Recent changes to peremptory challenges only permit a fixed number of peremptory challenges per side. Thus, out of 20 possible jurors, they may only be able to bounce 8 for non-legal related reasons. (I don't know the numbers, but they're not as lenient as they used to be.) > > Apple probable will win this case, but even if they don't, they can then use Not bloody likely. > the case as a precent and copy like hell anything they want. So, it's a win > win, case for Apple, and lose lose for HP and MS. IBM too for that matter. > A third benefit from the case, win or lose, is that Apple will slow down any > developement of Presentation Manager, 3rt party Windows applications and the > like. Presentation manager doesn't need anybody else to slow it down; they seem to be perfectly able to shoot themselves in the foot. Besides, all the spate of idiotic jury decisions means that the *REAL* court decisions are made by an appellate court, usually a panel of 3 old, crusty judges that are a lot harder to hoodwink than a bunch of jurors. I've heard that about 95% of the $1million plus damage awards are reversed on appeal. > > Apple is not being dumb by any means. Also remember they won a similar suit > against Digital Research. SO a precent in Apples favor already exists. Another They did not win any such suit. Their suit was settled out of court. Therefore, no precedent was established. Precedent only arises from a decision. > case, similar to this, was Microstuff (Crosstalk) vs. Mirror (a Crosstalk > clone). Microstuff won on the look and feel aspects of the case, lost on the > aspects. So Mirror was changed so that the screens didn't look like Crosstalks, But this was because Mirror was an *exact* clone of crosstalk, and because Mirror advocated openly in their advertising that they were a REPLACEMENT for Crosstalk. Not that they had a product embodying many of the same features, but an EXACT interchangeable replacement. Nowhere does Microsoft or HP come even close to spouting the same thing. > but everything else worked the same. Including the script language. Yes. This moves them back from being a "copycat" to being "compatible". Besides, the suit only covered the screen layout. Programming languages can't be copyrighted. Look at all the trouble Postscript got themselves into because they started calling Postscript a programming language, in their own manuals. You can't use the name but you can write a compatible language. They won the battle but lose the war. -- -brent williams Relational Technology, Inc. 1080 Marina Village Parkway {amdahl,sun,mtxinu,cpsc6a,hoptoad} Alameda, CA 94501 !rtech!brent (415)-769-1400
davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (03/30/88)
In article <1886@rtech.UUCP> brent@rtech.UUCP (Brent Williams) writes: > > Besides, all the spate of idiotic jury decisions means that the > *REAL* court decisions are made by an appellate court, usually > a panel of 3 old, crusty judges that are a lot harder to hoodwink > than a bunch of jurors. I've heard that about 95% of the $1million > plus damage awards are reversed on appeal. Excuse me? I assume that this is a typo and you meant 'reduced' rather than reversed. If 95% of the suits were reversed everybody would be trying to lose... When I was on jury duty the judge told us that he couldn't throw out a dollar amount unless it "offended the sensibilities of the court." My impression from talking to lawyers is that many cases get settled for less than the jury finding because neither party want to have an appeal. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
frank@zen.UUCP (Frank Wales) (04/01/88)
In article <1886@rtech.UUCP> brent@rtech.UUCP (Brent Williams) writes: >From article <2722@tekigm2.TEK.COM>, by timothym@tekigm2.TEK.COM > (Timothy D Margeson): >> Now, add to this trial by jury a small, helpless company like Apple, being > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Come on. The quarter just ended, apple announced $1 billion in revenue. > I bet Hewlett Packard is only about $6-8 billion per year, not > that much bigger than Apple. Also, microsoft only about $300 million. > They might try to capitalize on the "2 guys in a garage image" > but an attorney for the other guys would have no trouble pulling this > apart. In fact, since Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard were the original Silicon Valley "two guys in a garage" (now a museum), maybe HP could countersue Apple for ripping off how they got started. Then again, I think HP have more decency than to try. -- Frank Wales, Development Engineer, [frank@zen.uucp<->mcvax!zen.co.uk!frank] Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Rd., Leeds, ENGLAND, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048 x220