macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Christopher Silverberg) (03/24/90)
Well, as i'm sure some of you may have heard, a judge threw out all but one charge against Apple Computer brought on by Xerox. And even if Xerox wins the remaining charge, it will not result in any Apple financial loss. This is being called a victory for Apple. Although on the other hand, this weakens their case against Microsoft and whoever else they are suing, so all is good... Apple shouldn't win those cases anyway. Here's to the death of "look and feal!" :-) - Chris ============================================================================== == Chris Silverberg, WPI Box 719 ========= BBS Sysop: Main Street U.S.A. ===== == USENET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu ============ 2400 baud - (508) 832-7725 ======== == BITNET: macman@wpi.bitnet ============= Fido: 322/575 - Second Sight BBS == == GEnie: C.Silverberg ================== America Online: Silverberg ========
topgun@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Chandra Bajpai) (03/25/90)
In article <10149@wpi.wpi.edu> macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Christopher Silverberg) writes: >Well, as i'm sure some of you may have heard, a judge threw out all but >one charge against Apple Computer brought on by Xerox. And even if Xerox >wins the remaining charge, it will not result in any Apple financial loss. >This is being called a victory for Apple. > >Although on the other hand, this weakens their case against Microsoft and >whoever else they are suing, so all is good... Apple shouldn't win those >cases anyway. > What charges did the judge throw out? and how does this last charge affect Apple? I personally think Apple is guilty from stealing Xerox's technology. I also think Apple is wrong suing HP/Microsoft for something they don't own. Other opinions? -Chandra Bajpai topgun@brandeis.cs.edu
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/25/90)
topgun@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Chandra Bajpai) writes: >What charges did the judge throw out? and how does this last charge affect >Apple? The only charge left is one wehre Xerox wanted an affirmation that it had a copyright on the Star interface. It's a charge Apple didn't challenge because it didn't apply to anything as far as Apple was concerned. Anything that had anything to do with apple was thrown out of the suit. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] He hasn't an enemy in the world, and none of his friends like him. -- Wilde
cak3g@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Colin Klipsch) (03/26/90)
In article <1990Mar24.192730.20445@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> topgun@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Chandra Bajpai) writes: >In article <10149@wpi.wpi.edu> macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Christopher Silverberg) writes: >>Well, as i'm sure some of you may have heard, a judge threw out all but >>one charge against Apple Computer brought on by Xerox. And even if Xerox >>wins the remaining charge, it will not result in any Apple financial loss. >>This is being called a victory for Apple. >> > >What charges did the judge throw out? and how does this last charge affect >Apple? I personally think Apple is guilty from stealing Xerox's technology. >I also think Apple is wrong suing HP/Microsoft for something they don't own. I'm not sure I see how these two views can be consistent. Back in the early 80's, Jobs et. al. see the Xerox workstations and conclude that a graphical user interface would make a great computer. They borrow some ideas from Xerox, add some of their own, and out comes the Macintosh. You are calling this plagiarism -- it seems to me -- and I think there are some good arguments for this. Nevertheless. . . You then turn around and say that when HP and Microsoft do the same thing, they should be able to get away with it. This seems highly illogical to me. If the first case is plagiarism, then so is the second. It also becomes a plagiarism of a plagiarism, and so I suppose we should hope for Xerox to sue Microsoft. Maybe we can bring technological innovation to a complete standstill until the 21st century, by imprisoning everyone in the courtroom. My personal hopes, for rationality and progress, are for Xerox to lose against Apple and Apple to lose against HP/Microsoft. The graphical user interface is an inspiring invention, but no one should own it, any more than you can own the rights to automatic transmissions or the metric system. A good example of how idea-ownership is abused is Polaroid fast-developing film, which no one else is allowed to sell or improve, except of course the one corporation which happened to think of it first. As far as I know, Polaroid will continue to enjoy this special status for as long as it lives. People should not buy a Macintosh because it's the only personal computer allowed to have that graphical user interface, but because it's the best personal computer yet invented. (Not flawless, mind you, but the best nevertheless :) For Apple to maintain its leadership, it should be forced to compete in the world of ideas, as should everyone else. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -- George Carlin \ / Bemusedly, | DISCLAIMER: Colin Klipsch | This text is actually a horrendously UVA Astronomy Department | garbled excerpt from _Mating_Rituals_ Charlottesville, Virginia | of_West_African_Ostriches_, Vol IV, cak3g@virginia.edu | by Davis & Griffin, 1913, pp. 134-135 ____________________________/ \_______________________________________
gwangung@milton.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) (03/26/90)
In article <2746@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> cak3g@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Colin Klipsch) writes: >In article <1990Mar24.192730.20445@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> topgun@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Chandra Bajpai) writes: >>In article <10149@wpi.wpi.edu> macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Christopher Silverberg) writes: >My personal hopes, for rationality and progress, are for Xerox to lose >against Apple and Apple to lose against HP/Microsoft. The graphical >user interface is an inspiring invention, but no one should own it, any >more than you can own the rights to automatic transmissions or the >metric system. This is true if and only if the Macintosh graphical interface was the only way to implement a graphics interface, or if it was the best way by a very large margin. I don't think that's the case and that's how Apple is arguing it. Apple has never claimed the GUI as its own; it has claimed the Mac interface as its own. The two are not the same. Whether or not Apple is justified for pursuing a look and feel case against Mickeysoft and HP is another question.....
fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard) (03/27/90)
In article <2746@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> cak3g@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Colin Klipsch) writes: >People should not buy a Macintosh because it's the only personal >computer allowed to have that graphical user interface, but because >it's the best personal computer yet invented. (Not flawless, mind you, >but the best nevertheless :) For Apple to maintain its leadership, >it should be forced to compete in the world of ideas, as should everyone >else. This, and the rest of the thread is something I wish Apple's upper mgt. would read and appreciate. The sooner Apple lays off some lawyers and hires some customer service and technical people (BTW, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they have been doing the last few years), the better for all us users - both Mac and non-Mac. And given that a good lawyer costs about four times as much as a good technical person, the better for Apple's bottom line! How I long for the days when Apple was a company I could respect. rich ======================================================================== Richard Fozzard "Serendipity empowers" Univ of Colorado/CIRES/NOAA R/E/FS 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu (303)497-6011 or 444-3168
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/27/90)
fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard) writes: >The sooner Apple lays off some lawyers and >hires some customer service and technical people (BTW, the EXACT OPPOSITE >of what they have been doing the last few years >And given that a good lawyer costs about four times as much as a good >technical person, the better for Apple's bottom line! Just to keep the facts straight, I might point out that neither of these statements are true: I happen to *be* one of the technical support people Apple's hired in the last 18 months. Customer Service has been adding new services and hiring people for a couple of years. And good technical support folks are *not* even remotely cheap to hire. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] He hasn't an enemy in the world, and none of his friends like him. -- Wilde