mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (03/22/89)
For those of you who have not yet heard, the courts have ruled in favor of
Apple Computer in a summary judgement that was handed down today. Microsoft
had contended that Windows 2.03 was covered in the license agreement that was
signed by Apple and Microsoft in the past. Here is the press release that
Apple posted on their AppleLink network (so if it looks a little biased you'll
know why):
Apple Receives Favorable Ruling - Contract Issue/Microsoft
APPLE RECEIVES FAVORABLE RULING ON CONTRACT ISSUE;
COURT REJECTS MICROSOFT'S CLAIM THAT WINDOWS 2.03 IS LICENSED
Cupertino, California. March 21, 1989. Apple Computer, Inc. today announced
that the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, California has ruled that
Microsoft's Windows Version 2.03 is not licensed under a November 22, 1985
agreement between Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft had claimed that Windows
2.03 - a graphical user interface for IBM compatible personal computers - is
licensed under that agreement.
This ruling came in response to Apple's motion for partial summary judgment,
in which Apple claimed that Windows Version 2.03 was an unauthorized,
derivative work of Apple's copyrighted Macintosh(R) audio visual works.
"We're pleased by today's ruling, as it validates Apple's ongoing contention
that Windows 2.03 exceeded our 1985 agreement with Microsoft," said Albert A.
Eisenstat, Apple's senior vice president. "With this contract issue behind
us, we look forward to resolution of the remaining issues in the case."
Apple originally filed suit against Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard on
March 17, 1988 to protect its copyrighted Macintosh audio visual computer
displays against copyright infringement by two products: Microsoft's Windows
2.03 and Hewlett-Packard's NewWave. Apple's audio visual displays make the
Macintosh personal computer unique and distinctive, and, in computer parlance,
extremely "user friendly."
In May 1988, Microsoft requested that the case be bifurcated, or divided
into two parts, the first part of which was to determine the scope of the 1985
agreement. The two companies entered into the 1985 agreement to resolve a
dispute that had arisen at that time concerning the ownership of Macintosh
audio visual works and possible copyright infringement of those works by
Microsoft Windows Version 1.0.
Judge William W Schwarzer's decision today did not determine the issue
of copyright infringement, which will be resolved in a later phase of the
litigation. A status hearing has been scheduled for April 14, 1989 to
determine the schedule for resolution of the remaining issues in the case.
----------
It will be interesting to see what comes out of the second phase of the
hearings. Is Microsoft Windows too close to the Macintosh user interface?
Personally, I don't know myself. I can just imagine a bunch of lawyers
arguing about this (although it would probably be a more subjective argument
than the common argument on this network).
-Michael "I don't speak for anyone so leave me alone" Niehaus
--
Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)jln@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Jared Nedzel) (03/23/89)
In article <6271@bsu-cs.UUCP> mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: [stuff deleted] > >Judge William W Schwarzer's decision today did not determine the issue >of copyright infringement, which will be resolved in a later phase of the >litigation. A status hearing has been scheduled for April 14, 1989 to >determine the schedule for resolution of the remaining issues in the case. > >---------- > >It will be interesting to see what comes out of the second phase of the >hearings. Is Microsoft Windows too close to the Macintosh user interface? >Personally, I don't know myself. I can just imagine a bunch of lawyers >arguing about this (although it would probably be a more subjective argument >than the common argument on this network). > There's an important element that I think you may be missing here. I'm no lawyer, but I think that before the court can rule that MS infringed on Apple's copyright, they have to rule whether or not Apple's copyright is valid in the first place. As you probably know, Apple's interface is remarkably similar to work done at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). If I'm not mistaken, the concept of windows and icons was first developed at PARC. (I played with a Xerox Alto in 1980 - mouse, windows, graphic wordprocessor, draw program, ethernet connection to a *real* laser printer (Xerox 9700 -- 120 ppm!)) I think that the mouse was first developed by Doug Englebart (sp?) at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in the mid-late '60s. So, perhaps question number 1 is: can these concepts be copyrighted? If they can be copyrighted, question number 2 is: who owns the copyrights? Now don't get me wrong. I love the Mac (I'm writing this on one). The interface is great. IMHO, it's much better than MS Windows. I've done some programming in MS Windows, just enough (200 pages of C code) to say no thank you if anyone asks me to do anymore: IMHO the development tools suck. Nevertheless, I think that Apple's suit is bad for the industry. If they win it, I hope that Xerox has its lawyers warming up in the bullpen to sue the pants off Apple. -- Jared L. Nedzel --------------------------------------------------------------------- e-mail: nedzel@cive.stanford.edu Disclaimer: Don't believe anything I say -- I sure don't
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/23/89)
>>It will be interesting to see what comes out of the second phase of the >>hearings. Is Microsoft Windows too close to the Macintosh user interface? >There's an important element that I think you may be missing here. I'm no >lawyer, but I think that before the court can rule that MS infringed on Apple's >copyright, they have to rule whether or not Apple's copyright is valid in >the first place. From what I've read (and I'm no expert on the case, that's for sure), all the initial ruling stated was that the new release of Windows wasn't covered by the agreement between Apple and Microsoft. If the judge had ruled in favor of Microsoft here, there would have been no case, since Windows would have then been licensed. Since this ruling went against Microsoft, the features in Windows that weren't part of the earlier version of Windows aren't covered by any agreement between the two companies. That's all the ruling says. It can be considered a ruling against Microsoft, because if the ruling had gone the other way, the case would (effectively) be over. But it doesn't really *say* anything -- it doesn't say that Apple holds the copyrights, that the copyrights are valid, or that Microsoft has violated those copyrights. From what I can tell, essentially nothing has been decided except that the trial needs to move into the next phase. (special disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not speaking for Apple, and I don't know what I'm talking about (which goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway...)) Chuq Von Rospach -*- Editor,OtherRealms -*- Member SFWA chuq@apple.com -*- CI$: 73317,635 -*- Delphi: CHUQ -*- Applelink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] USENET: N. A self-replicating phage engineered by the phone company to cause computers to spend large amounts of their owners budget on modem charges.
jas@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Jeffrey A. Sullivan) (03/24/89)
In article <1068@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, jln@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Jared Nedzel) writes: >> [Stuff about the Apple-MS ruling] > > Nevertheless, I think that Apple's suit is bad for the industry. If they win > it, I hope that Xerox has its lawyers warming up in the bullpen to sue > the pants off Apple. Why exactly do you think it's bad? It's just business. Apple does have copyrights filed, valid or not, and in order to keep them, they must take active measures to protect their copyrights. Vis, this lawsuit. If they fail to try to protect their copyright, it falls into the public domain. Now can you really fault Apple for not wanting the interface they spent millions of dollars on to become PD? Also, this bit about Xerox keeps coming up. Two points here. One, I think Apple licensed some of this technology from Xerox. Two, even if they didn't, it seems to this [obligatory disclaimer: NON-LAWYER] that they have not made any active attempts to keep their copyrights from being infringed upon. Now, if the first is true, which I believe, then everything's hunky-dory, unless Xerox sues Apple for expanding beyond the original license (just like the Apple-MS suit), but I doubt this, since the Mac interface and the current Xerox interfaces I know of (D-Machines) are not all that similar in specifics, and I'm fairly sure the basics would have been covered in the original agreement. And if the second point is true, then Xerox has lost by inaction their copyrights to begin with. Anyway, the main issue is that it IS NOT bad for the industry for developers to protect their creations. It is the root of capitalism (please no arguments about the inherent evilness of capitalism!). Try to put it in your perspective: You develop a whiz-bang new piece of software that everybody -- but EVERYBODY -- wants to run (e.g., an OS), and start making millions on it. But all of the sudden, all of your competitors bring up amazingly similar OSes and your profits decline dramatically. Wouldn't you seriously think about suing? -- ............................................................................... Jeffrey Sullivan DELPHI: JSULLIVAN | University of Pittsburgh jas@cadre.dsl., jasper@unx.cis. {pittsburgh.edu} | Intelligent Systems Studies jasper@PittVMS.BITNET, {jasst3 | jasper}@cisunx.UUCP
stores@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) (03/24/89)
In article <1068@Portia.Stanford.EDU> jln@Portia.UUCP (Jared Nedzel) writes: >think that the mouse was first developed by Doug Englebart (sp?) at the >Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in the mid-late '60s. This is true. A lot of this was developed here including the begining of hypertext. AS I Write this I am looking at a picture of the first mouse that was developed hanging on my wall. It came from the picture archives. It looks like it was made from a 2x4. It has two big metal wheels and a button on the top. just thought you might like to know. -- ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Mora SRI International stores@SRI.COM ___________________________________________________________
mnkonar@gorby.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) (03/24/89)
In article <1068@Portia.Stanford.EDU> jln@Portia.UUCP (Jared Nedzel) writes: [stuff about the origins of the Mac Interface] >Nevertheless, I think that Apple's suit is bad for the industry. If they win >it, I hope that Xerox has its lawyers warming up in the bullpen to sue >the pants off Apple. > Back in Apple's dark ages, there was apparently a proposal that Apple BUY Xerox. The ramifications of this are interesting. Xerox has recently been mentioned as a takeover target and Apple would have a lot to gain in such a deal. The argument that Xerox "really" owns any copyrights or patents on graphical interface technology would become moot. Of course the cost may not be worth it in the eyes of Apple. Still, it's interesting to ponder. ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP)
rat@madnix.UUCP (David Douthitt) (03/25/89)
Just my two cents worth...
Much as I love my Apples here at home, it makes me sick to see how sue-happy
Apple is. I'd like nothing more than to see Apple *LOSE* and see a lot of
this clone lawsuit garbage quit.
I think all of Apple's lawsuits to date have really been bad for the computer
industry, especially for the creation of new materials for Apple computers
and the like.
Consider this: suppose that someone had copyrighted the "look and feel" of
a book. Then you couldn't write a book without either licensing or violating
copyright.
Before you know it, we won't be able to think without violating copyright
in our thoughts somehow. ("STOP THINKING THAT THOUGHT! It's copyrighted!")
[david]
PS: Did someone forget comp.sys.apple??? Imagine my surprise to find this
discussion ONLY in comp.sys.ibm.pc! (I don't read either comp.sys.mac
or comp.windows.ms ...)
--
======== David Douthitt :::: Madison, WI :::: The Stainless Steel Rat ========
FidoNet: 1:121/2 ::::: WittiNet: "Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice." ::::::
UseNet: ...{rutgers|ucbvax|harvard}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!rat
ArpaNet: madnix!rat@cs.wisc.edu {decvax|att}!peter@apexepa.UUCP (Peter Palij) (03/28/89)
I think 25-Mar-89 _The Economist_ put it best: ... At stake is technology that promises to make computers easier to use. Clear ownership of user-interface technology would put Apple in a commanding market position. It would drastically alter competition and innovation. Imagine what might have happened had an early carmaker managed to patent the steering wheel, accelerator and brake pedals. Apple's chances of establishing such ownership seem slim, but other computer-makers and software houses will not rest easily until it is made clear what litigious Apple might or might not own. ... [What's more basic "look and feel" than the above mentioned components of an automobile?] -- -- ----------------- Peter Palij uunet!apexepa!peter Apex Software Corporation peter@apexepa.uucp Phone: (412) 681-4343
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/28/89)
In article <564@apexepa.UUCP> peter@apexepa.UUCP (Peter Palij) writes: >I think 25-Mar-89 _The Economist_ put it best: (gads, I like the Economist. Having to read a British magazine to get decent American news is a sad commentary on us, though...) I'm just tossing a monkey wrench into this, just for the hell of it. Please consider my tongue stuck slightly into my cheek. >Imagine what might have happened had an early carmaker >managed to patent the steering wheel, accelerator and brake pedals. >[What's more basic "look and feel" than the above mentioned components >of an automobile?] Actually, some early cars used a rudder-like steering mechanism. The steering wheel has become standardized, but it certainly isn't unique -- or necessarily optimum. I keep seeing futuristic prototypes and many have alternative steering mechanisms. The same can be said for both accelarators and brake pedals. I know of cars that have neither -- look at the mechanisms in the vans of any paraplegic. Again, they're standards -- not necessarily optimum standards, but standards. You can actually look at this two ways. You can say that Apple is keeping people from using the best technology. You can also say that everyone else is trying to jump on the Apple bandwagon instead of going and inventing the next quantum leap in the interfaces. Imagine, if you will, that Apple had decided not to develop the Mac, but instead standardized with the rest of the world with MS-DOS. Where would the computer world be today? Isn't there a good argument for making people take new approaches? Always re-implementing the past doesn't improve the state of technology, it stagnates it. A steering wheel isn't the optimal form of direction change technology. What is? I don't know. But since the auto industry has decided that a steering wheel is 'good enough' it'll be exceptionally hard to make the leap to the next, really better form of the technology. What if all computer manufacturers decided that the MacOS was 'good enough' -- it's good. But wouldn't you like to see what's next? If you take away the rights to protect your R&D investment, you take away any reason to invest. After that, all you get is reimplimentations of the same thing. Infinite varieties of steering wheels. (disclaimer time: I don't believe a word I say....) Chuq Von Rospach -*- Editor,OtherRealms -*- Member SFWA chuq@apple.com -*- CI$: 73317,635 -*- Delphi: CHUQ -*- Applelink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] USENET: N. A self-replicating phage engineered by the phone company to cause computers to spend large amounts of their owners budget on modem charges.
ech@pegasus.ATT.COM (Edward C Horvath) (03/28/89)
From article <27940@apple.Apple.COM>, by chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach): > I'm just tossing a monkey wrench into this, just for the hell of it. Please > consider my tongue stuck slightly into my cheek. > You can actually look at this two ways. You can say that Apple is keeping > people from using the best technology. You can also say that everyone else > is trying to jump on the Apple bandwagon instead of going and inventing the > next quantum leap in the interfaces. Tongue in cheek or no, Chuq, we part company here. Progress occurs in two ways, evolutionary and revolutionary. The first steering wheel was certainly suboptimal. It may be that all steering wheels are suboptimal. But mandating that every car manufacturer invent an entirely new steering mechanism -- requiring revolution by outlawing evolution -- is flat silly. I have absolutely no problem with Apple charging enough to recover past and present development costs. Apple have the right to charge whatever they wish; if I don't like it, I'll buy something else. They have the right to license their technology to whomever they wish, including no one. They also have the right to try to build the patent/copyright/l&f walls just as high and wide as they wish. But I believe that, beyond a certain point, that effort just amounts to restraint of free trade and free expression. The way I advance the state of the art is by taking an accepted standard -- like the Mac interface -- and putting the spin on it that I need to make my application more effective and usable. We've seen many Mac developers introduce innovations into the Mac interface -- popup menus, command-key standards, macro processors, tear-off palettes -- that are incremental improvements on the basic interface. Some of these have been incorporated into Apple standard system software and ROMs, some have not. Using standards makes my app more acceptable and accessible. Putting on the spin WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO DO SO is what separates my app from the pack. So I agree that Apple can, and should, protect their R&D investment. But the best defense remains a good offense: keep doing the R&D, keep the evolution AND revolutions coming. When the law of diminishing returns sets in on the Mac, we'll chuck the whole thing for the next round of fruit. Possibly from Apple. Unless their lawyer budget passes their R&D budget. Anybody else here remember VisiCorp? I still keep hoping that I'll wake up one fine morning to the New York Times story about how Apple refused to settle out of court, forced the Look&Feel issue to the clear judicial decision...that L&F was bullshit. And that Sculley declared a company holiday to celebrate. It's the kind of thing Woz would do. But Woz never was a businessman... =Ned Horvath=
shebs@Apple.COM (Stanley Todd Shebs) (03/29/89)
In article <564@apexepa.UUCP> peter@apexepa.UUCP (Peter Palij) writes: > >I think 25-Mar-89 _The Economist_ put it best: > >... Imagine what might have happened had an early carmaker >managed to patent the steering wheel, accelerator and brake pedals. This suggests an interesting strategy for stopping "look and feel" controversy - make a particular user interface style an ANSI standard. (Or perhaps somebody is already working on this?) stan shebs shebs@apple.com
darryl@ism780c.isc.com (Darryl Richman) (03/29/89)
The most important point of this suit is not whether Windows 2.03/New Wave looks too much like a Mac. What's important here is for the judges and lawyers to find a clear expression of what a copyright on a computer can cover. There must be a balance between copyrighting the world (and therefore stifling competition and creativity) and no protection at all (and therefore stifling creativity and competition)! It's like the old joke--What's the difference between capitalism and communism? With capitalism, man exploits man; with communism, it's the other way around. When congress wrote the recent copyright law they purposly left it vague because they knew that they didn't know beans about the subject. So they left it to the judicial branch to figure out. *They* haven't done well either. Apple is particularly concerned because they stand to lose a great deal of R&D budget (and competitive edge) if copyright protection doesn't go far enough. But they themselves will be unhappy if it goes too far--how outrageous do you think Adobe could get about postscript, for example? The question is, where is the line? --Darryl Richman -- Copyright (c) 1989 Darryl Richman The views expressed are the author's alone darryl@ism780c.isc.com INTERACTIVE Systems Corp.-A Kodak Company "For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken
las) (03/29/89)
In article <564@apexepa.UUCP> peter@apexepa.UUCP (Peter Palij) writes: }I think 25-Mar-89 _The Economist_ put it best: }... At stake is technology that promises to make computers easier to }use. Clear ownership of user-interface technology would put Apple in }a commanding market position. It would drastically alter competition }and innovation. Imagine what might have happened had an early carmaker }managed to patent the steering wheel, accelerator and brake pedals. Such a patent did, at one time, exist - at least in the U.S. Henry Ford fought it and won. regards, Larry -- Signed: Larry A. Shurr (att!cbnews!cbema!las or osu-cis!apr!las) Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave (With apologies to the real thing. The above represents my views only.)
steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) (03/29/89)
In article <5182@cbnews.ATT.COM> cbema!las@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr) writes: #>In article <564@apexepa.UUCP> peter@apexepa.UUCP (Peter Palij) writes: #> #>}I think 25-Mar-89 _The Economist_ put it best: #> #>}... At stake is technology that promises to make computers easier to #>}use. Clear ownership of user-interface technology would put Apple in #>}a commanding market position. It would drastically alter competition #>}and innovation. Imagine what might have happened had an early carmaker #>}managed to patent the steering wheel, accelerator and brake pedals. #> #>Such a patent did, at one time, exist - at least in the U.S. Henry Ford #>fought it and won. #> #>regards, Larry Another good example was the hillholder, which was patented by Studebaker. The hillholder kept a car from sliding backward in neutral when engaging the gears prior to going up a hill. Nobody else could install it. Eventually, better manual transmissions and automatics superceded it. More importantly, the downside of patenting is clearly visible when disparate manufacturers each make valuable advances but no consumer can purchase a machine with all these advances combined. Steve Goldfield
esf00@uts.amdahl.com (Elliott S. Frank) (03/29/89)
In article <27940@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >You can actually look at this two ways. You can say that Apple is keeping >people from using the best technology. You can also say that everyone else >is trying to jump on the Apple bandwagon instead of going and inventing the >next quantum leap in the interfaces. > Or you could say .... .... that Apple now has lawyers who remind John Scully that >copyrights< belonging to commercial organizations (as opposed to private individuals) are basically "use it or lose it" items. If Apple does not present a vigorous defense of its copyrights (insofar as the law is concerned), then the copyright is null and void [can you spell 8086 ucode?]. Gassee's "family jewels" talk (usually cleaned up to "crown jewels" in the family-oriented trade press) suggests that Apple is not eager to put its visual interface (or its operating system) into the public domain. Whether a particular piece of Apple's visual interface is copyrightable or not is probably of much less concern than whether the copyright on the >entire< visual interface is defended. -- Elliott Frank ...!{hplabs,ames,sun}!amdahl!esf00 (408) 746-6384 or ....!{bnrmtv,drivax,hoptoad}!amdahl!esf00 [the above opinions are strictly mine, if anyone's.] [the above signature may or may not be repeated, depending upon some inscrutable property of the mailer-of-the-week.]
brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) (03/31/89)
In article <564@apexepa.UUCP>, peter@apexepa.UUCP (Peter Palij) writes: > I think 25-Mar-89 _The Economist_ put it best: [deleted] > and innovation. Imagine what might have happened had an early carmaker > managed to patent the steering wheel, accelerator and brake pedals. [etc.] > > [What's more basic "look and feel" than the above mentioned components > of an automobile?] Good example, but of what I don't know... Imagine how AT&T would feel if someone who had a license for a UNIX-like product came out with a "new and improved" version that was not necessarily covered by the original agreement. I don't think anyone would think twice if AT&T sued that company for taking too much for granted. > Imagine what might have happened had an early Operating System owner managed to patent an OS as popular and powerful as UNIX < ... Gee, somebody did! and now you had better not touch it without paying! > ----------------- > Peter Palij uunet!apexepa!peter > Apex Software Corporation peter@apexepa.uucp Phone: (412) 681-4343 Brian Willoughby microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET or uw-beaver!microsoft!brianw or just microsoft!brianw #include <disclaimer> // I would like to mention that I do not work on any // Windows products at MicroSoft, and my above thoughts // are CERTAINLY NOT THOSE OF MICROSOFT! ha!
garison@mirror.UUCP (Gary Piatt) (04/06/89)
In article <2574@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> Jeffrey A. Sullivan writes:
=> Try
=>to put it in your perspective: You develop a whiz-bang new piece of
=>software that everybody -- but EVERYBODY -- wants to run (e.g., an
=>OS), and start making millions on it. But all of the sudden, all of
=>your competitors bring up amazingly similar OSes and your profits
=>decline dramatically. Wouldn't you seriously think about suing?
Frankly, no. If I had already made millions of dollars on my software,
I would assume that the development costs had been covered and that
anything that I made over production costs (diskettes, shipping) was
clear profit. I would drop my retail price to cover production and
a small profit margin, knowing that my competitors could not match or
beat the price and still cover their (still outstanding) development
costs. The competition would go down in flames and I would once again
be the only producer of said software.
Apple is suing Microsoft solely for the public attention (in my own
opinion). Consider this: Apple makes Macintoshes, Mac II's, etc;
MS-Windows was written for PC's. Where's the competition? Apple is
not losing any business to Microsoft. In fact, it could be argued that
Apple gets free advertising evertime someone uses Windows; sooner or
later, a Windows user could be expected to purchase a Mac... going to
the horse's, uh, mouth, as it were.
-Garison-
Disclaimer:
The opinions stated above are of my own creation, and, therefore,
are probably wrong.gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman Gall) (04/06/89)
garison@prism.TMC.COM (Gary Piatt) writes: >Apple is suing Microsoft solely for the public attention (in my own >opinion). Consider this: Apple makes Macintoshes, Mac II's, etc; >MS-Windows was written for PC's. Where's the competition? Apple is >not losing any business to Microsoft. In fact, it could be argued that >Apple gets free advertising evertime someone uses Windows; sooner or >later, a Windows user could be expected to purchase a Mac... going to >the horse's, uh, mouth, as it were. Boy, you can sure tell YOU haven't worked in an IBM-only shop. If The 'suits' in your MIS or ACS dept. can say 'You don;t need mAcs, you have PCs with MS-Windows", you are screwed, blued, and Tattooed, and there's little you can do about it. The users have no recourse and that's how Apple loses ground to the competition. If, on the other hand, the only place to get the Mac-ish interface is from Apple, then the users can complain hard and long, and the MIS/ACS peple have to capitulate eventually (angry mob with lit tapers entering the computer room...) IBM... idiots bought me... -- nrg
sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Blake Sobiloff) (04/06/89)
In article <25056@mirror.UUCP> garison@prism.TMC.COM (Gary Piatt) writes: >Apple is suing Microsoft solely for the public attention (in my own >opinion). Consider this: Apple makes Macintoshes, Mac II's, etc; >MS-Windows was written for PC's. Where's the competition? Apple is >not losing any business to Microsoft. In fact, it could be argued that >Apple gets free advertising evertime someone uses Windows; sooner or >later, a Windows user could be expected to purchase a Mac... going to >the horse's, uh, mouth, as it were. I think that the problem Apple has with this is that there is such a much larger installed base of IBMs, plus they are "the 'safe' computer for business," . Corporations, and eventually personal users, will be tempted to buy Windows technology instead of Macs because they (usually) haven't experienced the difference between the two and assume that a graphics interface is a graphics interface is a graphics interface. In marketing circles this is called direct competition. Why would someone want to switch from IBM Windows (er, Microsoft) after they have invested so much money into the hardware and software, plus their time investment in learning the new programs (which is, of course, MUCH greater than on a Mac, right? :-) ? > > -Garison- > > >Disclaimer: > The opinions stated above are of my own creation, and, therefore, > are probably wrong. -- * Blake "Hey, where's *MY* fancy footer?" Sobiloff * * "Meet me in a restaurant..." or call me at- * * sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu *
iav1917%ritcv@cs.rit.edu (alan i. vymetalik) (04/07/89)
In article <25056@mirror.UUCP> garison@prism.TMC.COM (Gary Piatt) writes: [...] > >Apple is suing Microsoft solely for the public attention (in my own >opinion). Consider this: Apple makes Macintoshes, Mac II's, etc; >MS-Windows was written for PC's. Where's the competition? Apple is >not losing any business to Microsoft. In fact, it could be argued that >Apple gets free advertising evertime someone uses Windows; sooner or >later, a Windows user could be expected to purchase a Mac... going to >the horse's, uh, mouth, as it were. Concerning Apple's suit against Microsoft... These are my comments. I wrote them. They're mine. They may not be accurate, but they're presented to all for thought... Public attention? Yes, no doubt. It's a very visible case right now and the press loves to chew on these types "Silicon Valley Days" stories. However, Apple is not a "small fish" company. And, Apple's goals are not "small" either. I think it is easy to figure out that Apple has a bigger goal in mind: to nail Presentation Manager from Microsoft/IBM BEFORE it becomes a "hit" in the business world. If PM takes off, Apple can probably kiss goodbye its real advantages over the PC world (object-oriented OS, graphic interface, etc.). And, it does make one wonder, doesn't it, why IBM "invested" some $10,000,000 into NeXT, Inc. And, NeXT is supplying NeXTStep as well as the graphics interface for IBM's AIX machines (initially the RT series...initially...). Of course, IBM likes to cover "all its bases," however, $10M is a sizable chunk of money that COULD HAVE been spent on the Microsoft/IBM PM development (and O/S2). What, Microsoft CAN'T develop O/S2 - PM for $10M? Hmmm... Anyway, could this be a sign that IBM is going to push NeXTStep if Microsoft loses the suit? Only the Shadow knows for sure. Oh, keep an eye on Hewlett-Packard... Sharp stuff is coming from them soon... Rumors, rumors... Enjoy and watch the fireworks over the next couple of months... Alan -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mail: Alan I. Vymetalik, Prism Software Designs, 8 Barn Swallow Lane Rochester, New York, 14624-4650, USA Phone: (716)-889-2904 uucp: {seismo}!rochester!ritcv!iav1917 BITNET: aiv1917@ritvax -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
ks26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kenneth Sykes) (04/07/89)
> Boy, you can sure tell YOU haven't worked in an IBM-only shop. If The > 'suits' in your MIS or ACS dept. can say 'You don;t need mAcs, you > have PCs with MS-Windows", you are screwed, blued, and Tattooed, and > there's little you can do about it. The users have no recourse and > that's how Apple loses ground to the competition. If, on the other > hand, the only place to get the Mac-ish interface is from Apple, then > the users can complain hard and long, and the MIS/ACS peple have to > capitulate eventually (angry mob with lit tapers entering the computer > room...) > > IBM... idiots bought me... > > -- nrg There are a few things to consider that haven't been hit on yet: 1. Apple's current market share is roughly 10%, whereas the IBM-PC is roughly 23%. 2. There are GUI's available that offer more than the MAC, Windows, GEM, etc. (NewWave in particular). There was some discussion of 3-D windowing systems on comp.graphics that would blow away all of the above. 3. In spite of the fact that Apple won the first decision, all it has established is that Windows 2.03 is not covered under said contract. I wouldn't be so hasty to pop the champagne: Contract disputes are concrete cases, but copyrighting look-and-feel is VAGUE. Needless to say it will be a long, hard battle that wastes the time of two companies that could better spend their energies developing new technology instead of bickering over the old. In light of the above, Apple may be better off swallowing the suit and working towards making their platform compatible with IBMs. This would allow them to sell software to approximately 1/3 of all personal computers, instead of 10%. Doing so may allow them to increase market share by "graying" the line between IBM and Apple. --Ken Sykes
caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) (04/08/89)
In article <25056@mirror.UUCP> garison@prism.TMC.COM (Gary Piatt) writes: >In article <2574@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> Jeffrey A. Sullivan writes: >=>Try to put it in your perspective: You develop a whiz-bang new piece of >=>software that everybody -- but EVERYBODY -- wants to run (e.g., an >=>OS), and start making millions on it. But all of the sudden, all of >=>your competitors bring up amazingly similar OSes and your profits >=>decline dramatically. Wouldn't you seriously think about suing? >Frankly, no. If I had already made millions of dollars on my software, >I would assume that the development costs had been covered and that >anything that I made over production costs (diskettes, shipping) was >clear profit. I would drop my retail price to cover production and >a small profit margin, knowing that my competitors could not match or >beat the price and still cover their (still outstanding) development >costs. The competition would go down in flames and I would once again >be the only producer of said software. Keep in mind that for any company that wants to live longer than a couple of years, development on this product never ceases, and also this product is becoming the cash cow for the company, so you need this money to keep coming so you can develop the next generation of machines and software. Just because development costs on System/Finder 1.0 have been covered doesn't mean that you don't need money anymore... who's going to pay for the creation of 2.0? The users of 1.0. If you never intended to enhance your product this reasoning might hold up; but even then your competition quickly surpasses and swallows you, no matter how low your price is. Also, when a company has a cash cow the size of MS-DOS and comes looking to squeeze in on your market, you _better_ defend yourself. I personally don't think a lawsuit is the way to do this, creativity is; but your scenario just doesn't hold water. >Apple is suing Microsoft solely for the public attention (in my own >opinion). Consider this: Apple makes Macintoshes, Mac II's, etc; >MS-Windows was written for PC's. Where's the competition? Apple is >not losing any business to Microsoft. Nope. Think about it. When you buy a mac what are you buying? The Apple name? Probably not. The windowed interface, and the productivity and ease-of-use gains it returns? Probably. Now, if you were the only one in town selling something people loved, and someone started selling a product that could offer very similar benefits, fewer people would have to buy yours. Suddenly, people who would have had to come to you for windows could get them somewhere else-- perhaps not as well executed, perhaps not the most original execution (forgetting for the moment the Xerox question), but offering most of the same benefits. Add to that the possibility of working with equipment the buyer already owns, and of course Apple loses business. Besides, the attention they get is mostly negative out of something like this. They're suing because they see a substantial threat to their own interests-- holding a near-monopoly on WIMP environments for personal computing, especially in the lucrative business market. >In fact, it could be argued that >Apple gets free advertising evertime someone uses Windows; sooner or >later, a Windows user could be expected to purchase a Mac... going to >the horse's, uh, mouth, as it were. Well, that's just silly. As Windows improves it becomes _MUCH_ less likely that someone would decide to buy a mac after using windows. -Antonio Romero romerom@confidence.princeton.edu
plocher%sally@Sun.COM (John Plocher) (04/13/89)
+---- In article <2574@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> Jeffrey A. Sullivan writes: | software that everybody -- but EVERYBODY -- wants to run (e.g., an | OS), and start making millions on it. But all of the sudden, all of | your competitors bring up amazingly similar OSes and your profits | decline dramatically. Wouldn't you seriously think about suing? +---- No. Case in point: AT&T developed Unix. All would agree that Unix has its own "Look and Feel". Yet there are dozens of companies out there developing and selling "Unix Lookalikes" - Wenden's PC/NX, Tannenbaum's Minix, Flex, Idris, and the Free Software Foundation's GNU project, to name a few. Has AT&T sued? No. Have these "Clones" helped AT&T sell more Unix? Sure. Unix is now very popular and many people want the REAL THING. Never mind that Gnu or SunOS (:-) or [whatever] is better, the AT&T label means a whole lot. Now, if AT&T were still selling V6 Unix and was losing money because everyone else had a BSD 4.3 system, AND if they couldn't keep up with the state of the art anymore, THEN I'd think that they would call in the lawyers and see if they could make some money that way... Remember IHMO and all that... -John Plocher
bruceb@microsoft.UUCP (Bruce Burger) (04/14/89)
> Frankly, no. If I had already made millions of dollars on my software, > I would assume that the development costs had been covered and that > anything that I made over production costs (diskettes, shipping) was > clear profit. I would drop my retail price to cover production and > a small profit margin, knowing that my competitors could not match or > beat the price and still cover their (still outstanding) development > costs. > be the only producer of said software. Actually diskettes and shipping are very small portions of the costs for most software vendors. Major costs include documentation and packaging, marketing (which includes dealer relations, taking calls from customers about all sorts of things, advertising, etc.), and product support. Also profits have to fund future development, which often pays back several years later if at all.