neff@hpvcla.HP.COM (Dave Neff) (01/15/87)
This posting is half in jest and half serious (I would be interested in responses). I start with such a warning since I don't know how to enter half a smiley face. Doesn't MIMIX have the "look and feel" of AT&T System 7? Is there a potential copyright problem? Possible answers might be: 1) MIMIX has the blessing of AT&T (doubtful but possible). 2) AT&T has a history of not pressing copyright claims on other re-implimentations of UNIX. 3) AT&T has a more enlightened attitude than some other software company whose name also begins with A? 4) OR ....? Just throwing this out for consideration. Doesn't an operating system have a "look and feel" to the programmer and the user that is analogous to a "look and feel" of a user interface? Last I heard Lotus had won a suit against a 123 clonemaker on these grounds (the clone was a total re-write but had a nearly indistinguishable user interface). Like I said, I'm only half serious and truly hope this is not a potential problem with MIMIX or other similar software. Dave Neff hpfcla!hpvcla!neff
diamant@hpfclp.HP.COM (John Diamant) (01/19/87)
> Doesn't MIMIX have the "look and feel" of AT&T System 7? Is there > a potential copyright problem? That's AT&T version 7, not System 7 (it came for the research lab, not the USG, or whatever they call themselves today). Doesn't a Compaq have a "look and feel" of an IBM PC? > > Just throwing this out for consideration. Doesn't an operating > system have a "look and feel" to the programmer and the user that > is analogous to a "look and feel" of a user interface? Last I heard > Lotus had won a suit against a 123 clonemaker on these grounds > (the clone was a total re-write but had a nearly indistinguishable > user interface). Like I said, I'm only half serious and truly hope > this is not a potential problem with MIMIX or other similar software. > > Dave Neff > hpfcla!hpvcla!neff For some reason, under certain circumstances, reverse engineering is considered acceptable (hardware clones of machines), and possibly UNIX clones. In other cases, it is not, such as pull down menus that Apple managed to patent (or otherwise protect -- I don't know the details). I don't really understand the criterion used to determine whether it is O.K. or not. John Diamant Systems Software Operation UUCP: {hplabs,hpfcla}!hpfclp!diamant Hewlett Packard Co. ARPA/CSNET: diamant%hpfclp@hplabs.HP.COM Fort Collins, CO
hamilton@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu.UUCP (01/23/87)
diamant@hpfclp says: > For some reason, under certain circumstances, reverse engineering is considered > acceptable (hardware clones of machines), and possibly UNIX clones. In other > cases, it is not, such as pull down menus that Apple managed to patent (or > otherwise protect -- I don't know the details). I don't really understand > the criterion used to determine whether it is O.K. or not. i was under the impression that DRI surrendered to Apple before a judge had ruled on the case, leaving the issue unsettled. Lotus is currently suing a couple 123-clone makers with the same "look & feel" argument. wayne hamilton U of Il and US Army Corps of Engineers CERL UUCP: ihnp4!uiucuxc!hamilton ARPA: hamilton%uiucuxc@a.cs.uiuc.edu USMail: Box 476, Urbana, IL 61801 CSNET: hamilton%uiucuxc@uiuc.csnet Phone: (217)333-8703 CIS: [73047,544] PLink: w hamilton