mr2t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Tod Rose) (12/15/89)
the nightmare continues...
-mike
---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------
From: DowJones@andrew
To: bb+dow-jones@andrew
Subject: Xerox - Apple Computer Suit -2-
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 18:46:35 -0500 (EST)
The lawsuit asks the court to direct the U.S. Copyright Office to cancel
copyright registrations for Cupertino-based Apple's Lisa and Macintosh
software, Xerox said. The complaint alleges those Apple copyrights are
invalid.
The company said its complaint also alleges that Apple ''intentionally
and purposefully concealed'' that its Lisa and Macintosh software was
derived from Xerox software.
Xerox claims that by incorporating the design and appearance of portions
of the Xerox copyrighted Star graphic user interface in the Lisa and
Macintosh and licensing others to use that interface, Apple unjustly
received royalties, license fees and other benefits in excess of $100
million that properly belong to Xerox.
The Star graphic user interface software simplifies the way computer
users select programs, issue commands and perform various functions through
the manipulation of user-friendly visual displays.
In addition, the Xerox lawsuit claims that Apple's acts constitute
unfair competition and unfair business practices that have caused Xerox
to suffer past and continuing damages. The amount of these damages is
to be determined in court, but Xerox said it believes them to be in excess
of $50 million.
Referring to the filing of the complaint, David T. Kearns, Xerox chairman
and chief executive officer, said in a release that efforts to reach
an amicable settlement with Apple including a proposal for Apple to license
the involved software from Xerox, were rebuffed.
6:45 PMtrebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (12/18/89)
rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert K Shull) writes: >In article <cZW4IjO00Uh7429HEy@andrew.cmu.edu> mr2t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Tod Rose) writes: >> In addition, the Xerox lawsuit claims that Apple's acts constitute >>unfair competition and unfair business practices that have caused Xerox >i.e. Apple had a product and Xerox didn't. Whatever your feelings about this particular case, it seems to me that Apple is only getting what they have been dishing out. Apple was mainly responsible for the ``look and feel'' legal concept, and nobody denies that a large part of the basics of the windowing interface in general, and the Mac implementation in particular, were developed and tested at Xerox PARC. If Apple wants to go around suing people for appropriating their ideas, such as pull-down menus, window titles, and other Apple developed user interface concepts, they should expect to get sued by people whose ideas they appropriated (eg: Xerox). They can't have it both ways. If Apple is wise, they would pony up $10 or $20 million to Xerox for a license fee -- because it helps legitimize their position in re: look and feel. Why didn't they? It seems that the risk they may see is that if they pay Xerox, Xerox will go around licensing everyone else for windowing systems; and these people will wave the licenses in front of Apple when Apple's lawyers come calling. -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP Announcing TEMPORAL EXPRESS. For only $999,999.95 (per page), your message will be carefully stored, then sent back in time as soon as technologically possible. TEMEX - when it absolutely, postively has to be there yesterday!
mystone@mondo.engin.umich.edu (Dean Yu) (12/18/89)
In article <986@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes: >rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert K Shull) writes: >Whatever your feelings about this particular case, it seems to me that >Apple is only getting what they have been dishing out. Apple was mainly >responsible for the ``look and feel'' legal concept, and nobody denies >that a large part of the basics of the windowing interface in general, >and the Mac implementation in particular, were developed and tested at >Xerox PARC. > >If Apple wants to go around suing people for appropriating their ideas, >such as pull-down menus, window titles, and other Apple developed user >interface concepts, they should expect to get sued by people whose ideas >they appropriated (eg: Xerox). They can't have it both ways. If Apple >is wise, they would pony up $10 or $20 million to Xerox for a license >fee -- because it helps legitimize their position in re: look and feel. > >Why didn't they? It seems that the risk they may see is that if they >pay Xerox, Xerox will go around licensing everyone else for windowing >systems; and these people will wave the licenses in front of Apple when >Apple's lawyers come calling. > Actually, if you go digging far enough you'll find that Xerox owns (or at least, a used to own) a small part of Apple. This was in return for use of the Star technology on the Lisa and the Macintosh... I don't know why Xerox suddenly decided to sue Apple. They don't have any ground to stand on. _______________________________________________________________________________ Dean Yu | E-mail: mystone@caen.engin.umich.edu Self-declared License Czar | Real-mail: Dean Yu University of Michigan | 909 Church St Computer Aided Engineering Network | Apt C INCLUDE 'Disclaimers.a' | Ann Arbor, MI 48104 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jjw7384@ultb.isc.rit.edu (J.J. Wasilko) (12/19/89)
In article <1989Dec17.184851.7635@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) writes: >Interesting case, though. Forget about HP/Microsoft. Xerox could take out >every other windowing system in the industry with this one. And without even >having a real product (or are there actually some of their machines still >around?) Yep, there are still some of 'em around. We've got 6 of them here at school. I remember hearing that in System 7.0, printers will appear on the desktop like a drive. To print a file, you'll just drag it to the printer. This is the way you print documents on the STAR. Jeff
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (12/19/89)
In article <986@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > nobody denies > that a large part of the basics of the windowing interface in general, > and the Mac implementation in particular, were developed and tested at > Xerox PARC. This one is a bit too outrageous to let pass. Absolutely _no_ part of the Mac implementation was developed and tested at PARC. Furthermore, the basic concept of multiple windows came from SRI, as did the mouse. Should SRI be suing Xerox? David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (12/19/89)
In article <5827@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: >This one is a bit too outrageous to let pass. Absolutely _no_ part of the >Mac implementation was developed and tested at PARC. Furthermore, the >basic concept of multiple windows came from SRI, as did the mouse. Should >SRI be suing Xerox? How about this one: its is widely known that Steve Jobs *STOLE* a number of Xerox PARC employees to start the Lisa project. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (12/19/89)
In article <1786@ultb.isc.rit.edu> jjw7384@ultb.isc.rit.edu (J.J. Wasilko) writes: > desktop like a drive. To print a file, you'll just drag it to the > printer. This is the way you print documents on the STAR. My recollection from reading about the Star is that to print a document you didn't drag it to a printer icon. Instead, you had to select the icon, hit the Move (or Copy) button, and select the printer icon. In fact, I don't think the Star user interface had any concept of dragging objects around. (One reference is "The Xerox Star: A Retrospecitve" in Sept 89 IEEE Computer.) Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. Object Specialist Internet: lsr@Apple.com UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr AppleLink: Rosenstein1
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (12/19/89)
In article <21846@usc.edu>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > In article <5827@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: > >This one is a bit too outrageous to let pass. Absolutely _no_ part of the > >Mac implementation was developed and tested at PARC. Furthermore, the > >basic concept of multiple windows came from SRI, as did the mouse. Should > >SRI be suing Xerox? > > How about this one: its is widely known that Steve Jobs *STOLE* a number > of Xerox PARC employees to start the Lisa project. They were bound and gagged? Handcuffed to their desks, perhaps? A number of major contributors to the Mac and Lisa OS effort had no prior connection to PARC at all. (This should not necessarily be construed as a defense of Steve Jobs, btw.) ------------ "...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_ 275d
macduff@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Roger R. Espinosa) (12/19/89)
In article <21846@usc.edu>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > In article <5827@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: > >This one is a bit too outrageous to let pass. Absolutely _no_ part of the > >Mac implementation was developed and tested at PARC. Furthermore, the > >basic concept of multiple windows came from SRI, as did the mouse. Should > >SRI be suing Xerox? > > How about this one: its is widely known that Steve Jobs *STOLE* a number > of Xerox PARC employees to start the Lisa project. > > -- Marco Yep. He just walked in and took them all, and they didn't know *what* the hell was going on. Give me a break. But, anyway, ignoring that, saying that yes, he could actually *STEEL* employees (making it *only* Apple's fault...), Jobs, when he walked off to do NeXT, *STOLE* Macintosh developers from Apple. I guess some habits are hard to break. Looks like that WonderMachine everybody is drooling over is as morally bankrupt as the Macintosh. Geez. Technology reaches the masses. Roger
mnkonar@gorby.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) (12/19/89)
In article <129381@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >In article <21846@usc.edu>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >> How about this one: its is widely known that Steve Jobs *STOLE* a number >> of Xerox PARC employees to start the Lisa project. > >They were bound and gagged? Handcuffed to their desks, perhaps? > >A number of major contributors to the Mac and Lisa OS effort had no prior >connection to PARC at all. Paraphrasing from an interview/article I read about 4 years ago: Jobs took a tour of PARC since at the time Xerox was a significant stock holder in Apple. He saw the GUI's thay had up and running and asked what Xerox would do with them. The scientists there lamented that Xerox had no real plans to bring that stuff to market to which Jobs replied (something like) "well, if Xerox isn't going to do anything with this technology, I am!" at which point several key people decided Apple was a cooler place to work than Xerox, and left. BTW, one guy left PARC and joined Microsoft (I know, hard to believe). He was a key contributor to a PARC word processor called Bravo. His knowledge of Bravo spawned (barf) Word. ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP)
sharon@asylum.SF.CA.US (Sharon Fisher) (12/19/89)
In article <21846@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >How about this one: its is widely known that Steve Jobs *STOLE* a number >of Xerox PARC employees to start the Lisa project. Uh, perhaps he *hired* them. Last I heard, employees were allowed to leave their jobs to work for other employers. We're not serfs, you know.
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (12/19/89)
In article <12249@cbnewse.ATT.COM> macduff@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Roger R. Espinosa) writes: >But, anyway, ignoring that, saying that yes, he could actually *STEEL* >employees (making it *only* Apple's fault...), Jobs, when he walked off to >do NeXT, *STOLE* Macintosh developers from Apple. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I guess some habits are hard to break. Looks like that WonderMachine everybody >is drooling over is as morally bankrupt as the Macintosh. That's absolutely true. In fact Apple sued Steve over it and refrained from pursuing the lawsuit after an agreement of swapping of technology, plus the assurance that no more people would be taken from Apple. I believe that Apple has access to NeXT trade secrets, to make sure that none of *their* *proprietary* (ha, ha :-) technologies are stolen. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (12/19/89)
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: >In article <986@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes: >> nobody denies >> that a large part of the basics of the windowing interface in general, >> and the Mac implementation in particular, were developed and tested at >> Xerox PARC. >This one is a bit too outrageous to let pass. Absolutely _no_ part of the >Mac implementation was developed and tested at PARC. Furthermore, the >basic concept of multiple windows came from SRI, as did the mouse. Should >SRI be suing Xerox? David, I may be guilty of poor phrasing. What I intended to imply was that the basics of the GUI's (or WIMP interfaces if you will) were developed at Xerox (windows, menus, icons, scrolling, etc), and then considerably expanded and improved at Apple. I did not mean to imply that the unique aspects of the Mac interface (pulldown menus, particular details of the look of windows, etc) were developed at PARC. -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP Announcing TEMPORAL EXPRESS. For only $999,999.95 (per page), your message will be carefully stored, then sent back in time as soon as technologically possible. TEMEX - when it absolutely, postively has to be there yesterday!
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (12/20/89)
In article <21846@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > How about this one: its is widely known that Steve Jobs *STOLE* a number > of Xerox PARC employees to start the Lisa project. Let me explain to you about America. It's a wonderful country where employees are not *OWNED* by companies. David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (12/20/89)
In article <5867@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: >In article <21846@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >> How about this one: its is widely known that Steve Jobs *STOLE* a number >> of Xerox PARC employees to start the Lisa project. > >Let me explain to you about America. It's a wonderful country where >employees are not *OWNED* by companies. Your (i.e. Apple) lawyers certainly disagree with you, given the way they acted with regard to the Apple employees Steve Jobs took with him at NeXT (and the ones he wanted to take and wasn't allowed to) :-) -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (12/21/89)
>How about this one: its is widely known that Steve Jobs *STOLE* a number >of Xerox PARC employees to start the Lisa project. Cool your jets. I am told that when PARC was started, Xerox drained (read: hired away) most of the top-notch talent from other firms in Silicon Valley. Xerox's name was mud throughout the region. Xerox lost employees because it drove them away. Apple's "hiring away" was much more respectable than Xerox's.
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (12/21/89)
> I remember hearing that in System 7.0, printers will appear on the > desktop like a drive. To print a file, you'll just drag it to the > printer. This is the way you print documents on the STAR. The amusing thing about STAR is that the user interface is *too consistent*. If you spend months composing a document, then "move" it to the printer, it gets printed AND DELETED. After all, you said "move", not "copy" it to the printer! This hits novices all the time; I remember the User Interface people as being too stubborn to change their semantics. ------------------------ Also, about "stealing" people. A friend once put it this way, "After a while, the muck you've coded builds up around you, and you flounder in your self-made mess. At some point, programmers yearn for a clean sheet of paper. About the only way to get one is to quit and go to a new company."
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (12/21/89)
In article <21871@usc.edu>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > In article <5867@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: > >In article <21846@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > >> How about this one: its is widely known that Steve Jobs *STOLE* a number > >> of Xerox PARC employees to start the Lisa project. > > > >Let me explain to you about America. It's a wonderful country where > >employees are not *OWNED* by companies. > > Your (i.e. Apple) lawyers certainly disagree with you, given the way > they acted with regard to the Apple employees Steve Jobs took with > him at NeXT (and the ones he wanted to take and wasn't allowed to) :-) Jobs did something that's frowned upon in just about any company I've ever heard of. He got the committment of several of the employees in question to go with him and start a new company while he was still an employee of Apple himself. Which is what he got pounded on for doing. Raiding. The employees at Xerox, for the most part, left for Apple when they saw a chance to actually get some of their ideas out in the daylight of the marketplace. There must be great frustration connected with working somewhere where the things you produce never turn in to "real" products. (At least, several I talked to about the matter at the time felt that way.) ------------ "...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_ 275d
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (12/21/89)
This just in. From today's Wall Street Journal: "APPLE COMPUTER INC. AGREES TO SETTLEMENT OF PATENT DISPUTE Apple Computer Inc. said it agreed to settle a patent dispute with two tiny Los Altos, Calif., software companies. As part of the settlement, Apple will make a one-time payment to Quickview Systems Inc. and HyperRacks Inc., both run by programmer Paul Heckel. Apple declined to disclose the size of the payment, but a source close to the settlement described it as substantial. HyperRacks filed suit in September, charging that Apple's Hypercard software infringed on a patent held by HyperRacks." This doesn't seem the best of Christmas at Apple (sagging sales in the low end machines, stock price nose diving, 2 lawsuits pending, one settled at a loss :^) -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (12/21/89)
In article <21846@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >How about this one: its is widely known that Steve Jobs *STOLE* a number >of Xerox PARC employees to start the Lisa project. How do you steal an employee? You either *WANT* to work where your at, or you don't...It seems to me that those that went to Apple from Xerox left because they wanted to, I doubt they were coerced...(perhaps by money, but hey, thats life eh)... -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM