rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (03/08/91)
I just got this out of comp.sys.amiga.misc. If Apple can sue Microsoft for
windows, is Digital Research and Gem far behind? Gem is a lot closer to the
interface of the Mac than Windows is.
------------------------ Article Starts ------------------------------
SAN FRANCISCO (UPI) -- A federal judge gave a preliminary ruling
Wednesday in favor of Apple Computer in its suit claiming copyright
infringement by Microsoft with its ``Windows'' program for IBM computers
and compatibles.
In the closely watched suit over the rights to a ``user friendly''
computer, Apple alleges that Microsoft is using ideas from its Macintosh
computers for its popular program run on IBM and compatible machines.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker cleared the way for a trial in
Apple's suit against Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard.
The judge denied motions from Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard and
upheld Apple's claim that the Macintosh computer audio-visual displays
are original to Apple. The judge also held that the major portions of
Macintosh audio-visual displays -- overlapping windows and icons -- are
not licensed to Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard.
``We're pleased with this favorable ruling and look forward to moving
to the core of this case the issue of copyright infringement by
Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard,'' said Edward B. Stead, Apple's vice
president and general counsel. ``With these issues behind us, we believe
our case is strengthened. We're confident that the remaining issues in
this case will be resolved in our favor.''
Apple claims displays used in Windows 2.03 were original to Apple and
not covered by the scope of a 1985 agreement between Apple and
Microsoft. Those audio-visual displays include overlapping windows and
the appearance and manipulation of icons, or figures on the screen. The
court upheld that assertion. Both Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft argued
that the Macintosh user interface is not entitled to copyright
protection because it had been copied from earlier programs, principally
Xerox Star and SmallTalk. The court said the Macintosh user interface
programs were original works, independently created by Apple.
Apple filed suit against Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard in March 1988
to protect its copyrights against infringement by Microsoft's Windows 2.
03 and Hewlett-Packard's New Wave.
Apple's audio-visual displays make the Macintosh personal computer
unique and distinctive, and in computer parlance, ``user friendly.''
Judge Walker's decision did not determine the issue of copyright
infringement, which will be resolved in the next phase of litigation. A
status conference will be held to determine the schedule for the
resolution of the remaining issues in the case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan 'Gozar' Collins Question for IBM Users: rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET
|||| Power Without How DO you move/copy a rc1dsanu@miamiu.BITNET
/ || \ The Price!! Subdirectory? R.COLLINS1 on GEnie
------------------------------------------------------------------------------carter@cat27.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) (03/08/91)
You know its too bad corporate greed is killing our computer industry as it is. First there was the Japanese who innovated the industry with incredibly high quality low cost semiconductor components, which makes owning computers possible by the little people, and then we had the American chip manufacturers balling about the loss of business cause it would cost too much to be competitive with the Japenese method of doing things. Now we have American companies screwing each other over nothing but money, fuck the the whole thing about competition, we are just greedy and want to keep everyone under our large price margins... Well, fuck you Apple Corp. I hope you get screwed. --Gregory
entropy@ai.mit.edu (entropy) (03/08/91)
In article <1991Mar7.223704.19777@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> carter@cat27.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) writes:
Now we have American companies screwing each other over nothing but money, fuck
the the whole thing about competition, we are just greedy and want to keep
everyone under our large price margins...
Well, fuck you Apple Corp. I hope you get screwed.
--Gregory
Join the League for Programming Freedom. They are opposed to user
interface copyrights and software patents. Write to
league@prep.ai.mit.edu for more info.
Boycott Lotus, Apple, Xerox, and Ashton-Tate! Join the LPF!
entropyarcher@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully) (03/09/91)
In <4159.27d64355@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes:
*I just got this out of comp.sys.amiga.misc. If Apple can sue Microsoft for
*windows, is Digital Research and Gem far behind? Gem is a lot closer to the
*interface of the Mac than Windows is.
*
DRI settled with Apple long ago, so Gem is in the clear.
BTW just because the case is going to trial DOESN'T mean that Apple has
won. Far from it. It just means that judge did not feel that a summary
judgement could be made, and that all the facts do need to be heard, as
well as additional testimony. This case will be very interesting to follow.
My personal feeling is that final decision will be against Apple, especially
since the judge's preliminary finding stated that copyright protection was
involved, and not patent protection.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to be one!
--
"Actually, I'd rather play a nazi transsexual in a buddy film"
-- John Cusack
<archer@sgi.com> Archer Sully scale@abode.wciu.edu (Luis Outumuro) (03/09/91)
Gee Gregory,
A little too much starch in your underwear during that last
laundry load?! Ease up on the starch and you will feel much better! {:^)
Apple will probably file lawsuits against everyother GUI know to man also;
like Motif, GeoWorks and whatever else comes along.
Maybe someday the Allied Coalition will challenge Saddam's claim of
GUI being the 19th province of Apple, lunacy isn't?! [:^) Bye........
Luis
--
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Luis Mark Outumuro III | "Well... you're damned if you do,
Computer Office Products 818/813-1051 | and you're damned if you don't!"
Infoline 818/813-1053 | - Bart Simpson, 1990...gilliam@lowlif.dec.com (03/09/91)
In article <4159.27d64355@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes... >I just got this out of comp.sys.amiga.misc. If Apple can sue Microsoft for >windows, is Digital Research and Gem far behind? Gem is a lot closer to the >interface of the Mac than Windows is. > Apple did sue DRI in 1985 and won. The Atari license using GEM V1.1 was exempted from the ruling. That's why subsequent versions of GEM are different. --- Mason Gilliam ---
scoile@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Steve Coile) (03/09/91)
I do NOT understand how Apple can copyright an IDEA!!! It's like J.R.R.
Tolkein coming back and suing (sp?) every other author who has ever
written fantasy! I mean, what if IBM sued every company distributing a
CLI? Or AT&T suing every company that cloned Unix? Who the hell does
Apple think they are?? Or maybe more importantly, who's the judge who
doesn't understand that IDEAS and CONCEPTS are not CONCRETE, and thus
cannot HAVE a copyright???
Steve "Stevers!" Coile
scoile@gmuvax[{.BITNET|[2].gmu.edu}]|2211c1@gmuvax2.gmu.edu
"Maturity is knowing when and where to act immature"sytang@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Shoou-yu tang) (03/10/91)
If my memory were correct, TOS should not be affected by this because they have already settle it in the very begining and that's why GEM looks like now instead of more close to MAC. I might be wrong, but I seems to remember this way. Tang
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) (03/11/91)
archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully) writes: > In <4159.27d64355@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Rya > *I just got this out of comp.sys.amiga.misc. If Apple can sue Microsoft for > *windows, is Digital Research and Gem far behind? Gem is a lot closer to the > *interface of the Mac than Windows is. > > DRI settled with Apple long ago, so Gem is in the clear. Not true. DRI settled with Apple and produced GEM 3. GEM 3 was never released on the ST; the ST uses a GEM 2 derivative, and is therefore probably viewed by Apple as infringing its copyright. The changes which DRI agreed to make were that the desktop front-end not have multiple resizable overlapping windows, that the menus be drop-down rather than pull-down, and that there be no trash can on the desktop. The new TT desktop is even more Mac-like, so we can expect trouble if Apple wins and goes on to pick on someone else. Of course, GEM 3 had all sorts of neat stuff as well, like custom icons, proper device-independent output and the like. If DRI and Atari hadn't fallen out, we might have got a much better OS. Still, DRI seem to have dropped GEM now... mathew
apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) (03/12/91)
>>In article <4159.27d64355@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, >>rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes... >>...is Digital Research and Gem far behind?... >gilliam@lowlif.dec.com writes: >Apple did sue DRI in 1985 and won. The Atari license using GEM V1.1 was >exempted from the ruling. That's why subsequent versions of GEM are different. Actually, that's not the case. I don't know if Apple actually sued DRI, but I don't think so. The story as I know it is that they just made threatening noises, and DRI knuckled under. DRI agreed to modify GEM to be less Mac-like (e.g. no overlapping windows), and that got Apple off their back. Atari's license pre-dated that agreement, I think. I'm just blabbering; I don't really know anything. Have your lawyers talk to our lawyers if you want facts and legal opinions rather than scuttlebutt. ============================================ Opinions expressed above do not necessarily -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. ...ames!atari!apratt
vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) (03/13/91)
In one of the PC rags, a pundit commented "The essence of this suit is that nobody is allowed to steal from Apple what Apple stole from Xerox." I don't mean to defend Apple's stance, but they actually took the trouble to license their stuff from Xerox, and to a large extent, that's what they're protecting. But I still think they're too litigious. -- vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder vsnyder@jato.uucp
mc4c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Mark Choi) (03/13/91)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.atari.st: 12-Mar-91 Re: Apple wins > against Micr.. Van Snyder@jato.jpl.nasa (423) > In one of the PC rags, a pundit commented "The essence of this suit is that > nobody is allowed to steal from Apple what Apple stole from Xerox." I don't > mean to defend Apple's stance, but they actually took the trouble to license > their stuff from Xerox, and to a large extent, that's what they're protecting. > But I still think they're too litigious. Actually, not they didn't; at least not entirely. They licensed a few concepts, but their recent suits go way out of these bounds. That is why Xerox has mentioned publicly that it intends to pursue legal action against Apple Corp. I can't quite remember the specifics of the license, or when the Apple/Xerox trial will be, but I think that I first heard about it on computer chronicles, last year. BTW, I wonder what they will try to do against Steve-O over at NeXT!
neil@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Forsyth) (03/13/91)
In article <2850@atari.UUCP> apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes: >... I don't know if Apple actually sued DRI, >but I don't think so. The story as I know it is that they just made >threatening noises, and DRI knuckled under. DRI agreed to modify GEM to be >less Mac-like (e.g. no overlapping windows), and that got Apple off their >back. Atari's license pre-dated that agreement, I think. The way I heard it was that half the board of directors of Apple were also on the DRI board. So to avoid shooting themselves in the foot they just settled it all out of court. It's odd though that the new TT desktop is getting *VERY* Mac like in most respects, even XCONTROL works like the Macs accessories. The most notable exception is the drop down menus. >I'm just blabbering; I don't really know anything. Yeah. Me too but isn't it fun to talk when the only flames are the ones on the fire we're all sitting around. Hey pass me the bottle ... >============================================ >Opinions expressed above do not necessarily -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. >reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. ...ames!atari!apratt +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ! DISCLAIMER:Unless otherwise stated, the above comments are entirely my own ! ! ! ! Neil Forsyth JANET: neil@uk.ac.hw.cs ! ! Dept. of Computer Science ARPA: neil@cs.hw.ac.uk ! ! Heriot-Watt University UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!neil ! ! Edinburgh, Scotland, UK "That was never 5 minutes!" ! +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (03/14/91)
In article <EbrPeQS00VIFM3Q24t@andrew.cmu.edu> mc4c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Mark Choi) writes: >Xerox has mentioned publicly that it intends to pursue legal action >against Apple Corp. I can't quite remember the specifics of the license, >or when the Apple/Xerox trial will be, but I think that I first heard >about it on computer chronicles, last year. BTW, I wonder what they will >try to do against Steve-O over at NeXT! The Xerox action against Apple came before a judge sometime last year (or 1989, not sure), and it was thrown out of court. I think the judge said something about Xerox having waited too long to bring the action. An interesting sidenote is that Xerox filed the court action shortly after William Lowe took over their PC division. William Lowe ran IBM's PC division when the original PC was developed and introduced. Coincidence? -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 "Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6900
archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully) (03/14/91)
In <gbrPe4O00VIFA3Q1kZ@andrew.cmu.edu> mc4c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Mark Choi) writes:
*
*Actually, not they didn't; at least not entirely. They licensed a few
*concepts, but their recent suits go way out of these bounds. That is why
*Xerox has mentioned publicly that it intends to pursue legal action
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*against Apple Corp. I can't quite remember the specifics of the license,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*or when the Apple/Xerox trial will be, but I think that I first heard
*about it on computer chronicles, last year. BTW, I wonder what they will
*try to do against Steve-O over at NeXT!
Did I miss something? Wasnt' Xerox's suit against Apple thrown out a couple
of years ago?
--
"Actually, I'd rather play a nazi transsexual in a buddy film"
-- John Cusack
<archer@sgi.com> Archer Sully vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) (03/14/91)
NOTE network.thought.police: don't read this article. In article <1991Mar13.163621.6682@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >In article <EbrPeQS00VIFM3Q24t@andrew.cmu.edu> mc4c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Mark Choi) writes: >>Xerox has mentioned publicly that it intends to pursue legal action >>against Apple Corp.. > >The Xerox action against Apple came before a judge sometime last year (or >1989, not sure), and it was thrown out of court. I think the judge said >something about Xerox having waited too long to bring the action. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It's called the "doctrine of laches:" If somebody else is using your property, and you know it, and you do nothing to protect it, after a certain period of time (5 years, think, but perhaps depending on the property and jurisdiction), you no longer have the right to protect it. -- vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder vsnyder@jato.uucp
bro@eunomia.rice.edu (Douglas Monk) (03/18/91)
In article <1991Mar13.184236.26029@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Van Snyder) writes: >NOTE network.thought.police: don't read this article. >In article <1991Mar13.163621.6682@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >>The Xerox action against Apple [...] was thrown out of court. >>[...] something about Xerox having waited too long to bring the action. >It's called the "doctrine of laches:" If somebody else is using your >property, and you know it, and you do nothing to protect it, after a certain >period of time (5 years, think, but perhaps depending on the property and >jurisdiction), you no longer have the right to protect it. Legal question 1: Do the property rights devolve to the usurper, or can the original owner still sell, transfer, lease, (or license) it to others? Legal question 2: If neither of the above, wouldn't the property become "Public Domain"? (Though I cannot think of a physical analogy for this, the trademark analogy would be: if you defend your trademark, you can prevent it from being used by others. If you do not defend it (within a certain period of time) it can be used *by anyone*. Thus the constant battles about using trademarked terms in a generic sense (coke(TM), polaroid(TM), xerox(TM :-) etc.). Doug Monk (bro@rice.edu) Disclaimer: These views are mine, not necessarily my organization's.