dumesny@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Alain Dumesny) (03/21/88)
rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) writes : >Apple has entered a legal challenge which, if successful, could have >dire effects on future development of user interfaces for personal >computers. >........ >If there is sufficient interest, I am also willing to help >coordinate the development of an amicus curiae brief opposing >Apple's claims. >.... NO ! ! I totally agree with Apple's claims. I don't think that companies like Microsoft or HP, or just anyone, has the right to copy the interface Apple as created (or at least expanded from an original design at Xerox). Apple has spent several years (four I think) and many, many man hours to produce what is now recognized as a revolutionary way of working with computers. I don't know if you remember, but when Apple introduced the mac more than 4 years ago (January of 84), many PC users (as in IBM PC's) laughed at the interface saying that mac will never be a serious "business machine" with this icon based interface (remember that magazine cover page with mac saying "hello" and an IBM PC saying "get lost" ?). Now, companies like IBM realized the potential of such an interface (enormous cut in training cost and added productivity) and want to copy the look and feel of the mac's interface !! I DISAGREE . I hope that Apple will win, and that Microsoft will have to stop Window (or give it a total different interface), because to me Window is a violation to Apple rights (did you look at the windows, scroll bars, "elevators"..., there is only a few differences, like the way you select an item from a menu (you don't press the mouse button down while dragging, but rather click again, which I must admit is better)). I don't think that people should be allowed to copy Apple's work (with a few changes to make it look a little diferent), because Apple spent so much money into developing this interface (and took risks because you never knew if the mac was going to be a success or not (although I always thought so)), while others just wait and see if it succeed, in which case they implement it on their own computers. When I said that Window looks like the mac interface I mean the "looks and feel", not the inside of the program, which may have many added/other/different features. The future is funny. A few years ago, who thought that Microsoft/IBM would ever try to implement and interface similar to the mac's interface. How could a computer with a smiling face at startup ever do business ? right ! ( I am glad that more and more business people stopped thinking this way) As you probably would have guessed I am glad that I will never have to work for IBM, even though I receive a job offer from them ! (but Apple is another story :-) Alain--- Cornell University Electrical Engineering / Computer Science Usual disclaim .... those are my own opinions, etc .....
rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) (03/21/88)
I've received several pieces of mail indicating that the original
posting of this message arrived in garbled form (or not at all) in
various parts of the net. Because it concerns an important issue in
which there appears to be a great deal of interest, I am reposting the
article in its entirety, with all known errors corrected. Please
forgive any inconvenience the extra copy may cause.
Sincerely,
Brett Glass (well!rogue)
________________________________________________________________
Apple has entered a legal challenge which, if successful, could have
dire effects on future development of user interfaces for personal
computers.
I've keyboarded the complete text of the complaint filed by Apple
Computer on March 17, 1988 in the U.S. District Court in San
Jose. If you take as dim a view as I do of Apple's action, you
may want to make your opinion known by penning a letter to:
Mr. John Sculley
Chairman of the Board
Apple Computer, Inc.
20525 Mariani Avenue
Cupertino, California 95041
(408) 996-1010
If there is sufficient interest, I am also willing to help
coordinate the development of an "Amicus Curiae" ("Friend of
the Court") brief opposing Apple's claims. For more information
on this effort, please contact me (L. Brett Glass) at one of
the following electronic addresses:
Usenet: {ihnp4 | uunet}!lll-winken!well!rogue
BIX: glass
CompuServe and MCI: CIS [72267,3673]
And now, the text....
_______________________________________________________________
Jack E. Brown
BROWN & BAIN, P.A.
Post Office Box 400
222 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85001
(602)257-8777
Lois W. Abraham
Chris R. Ottenweller
Martin L. Lagod
Jeffrey D. Steinhardt
BROWN & BAIN
600 Hansen Way, Suite 100
Palo Alto, California 94306
(415)856-9411
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
APPLE COMPUTER, INC., )
a California corporation, )
) No.
Plaintiff, )
) COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT
v. ) INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR
) COMPETITION
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Delaware )
corporation, and ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, )
a California corporation, )
)
Defendants. )
)
___________________________________)
Plaintiff Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple"), by its
undersigned attorneys, complains of defendants and alleges as
follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
____________________
1. This is an action arising out of defendants'
infringement of Apple's copyrighted audiovisual works and the
computer programs embodying those audiovisual works.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
______________________
2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$ 1331 and 1338
and the doctrine of pendant jurisdiction.
3. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. $ 1391(b) and (c) and $ 1400.
THE PARTIES
___________
4. Plaintiff Apple Computer, Inc. is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California
with its principal place of business in Cupertino, California.
Apple is engaged in the business of designing, developing and
marketing computer hardware and software products, including the
Macintosh computer. Apple is recognized as a worldwide
leader in the design, manufacturing and distribution of
innovative personal computer systems.
5. Defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") is
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
of Delaware with its principal place of business in Redmond,
Washington. Microsoft is engaged in the business of developing,
marketing and publishing computer programs. Microsoft is
qualified to do business and is doing business in this judicial
district.
6. Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company
("Hewlett-Packard") is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of California with its principal place of
business in Palo Alto, California. Hewlett-Packard is engaged in
the business of designing, manufacturing and marketing hardware
and software products which compete with Apple's products.
Hewlett-Packard resides, transacts business and may be found in
this judicial district.
COUNT I
_______
(Copyright Infringement)
7. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates herein the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 6 above.
8. Since its introduction in 1984, the Macintosh personal
computer has achieved great commercial success and acceptance in
the United States and throughout the world. A major reason for
that success is the innovative audiovisual display developed by
Apple which makes the Macintosh unique and distinctive and, in
computer parlance, extremely "user friendly."
9. The Macintosh computer programs generate a series of
fanciful visual displays and images appearing on the computer
screen, whereby the user, by using a cursor control device
(i.e., "mouse"), can communicate with the computer. Apple has
expended millions of dollars and years of creative effort in the
development of artistic, aesthetically pleasing visual displays
and graphic images that enhance the value and commercial appeal
of Apple's products. The development started with Apple's work on
the Lisa computer and continued through the extensive development
efforts on the Macintosh. As a result of this major investment,
the distinctive expression represented by the visual displays and
graphic images generated by the Macintosh computer programs is
widely recognized as a hallmark of the Macintosh computer
system.
10. The visual displays and images generated by the
Macintosh computer programs are protected audiovisual works under
the Copyright Act. Apple is the owner of the following copyrighted
audiovisual works, each of which substantially consists of
material wholly original with Apple and is copyrightable subject
matter under the Copyright Act:
(a) Lisa, Reg. No. PA 336 104, effective May 1,
1987 (Exhibit A).
(b) Macintosh Finder, Reg. No. PA 336 105,
effective May 1, 1987, a derivative work based on
Lisa (Exhibit B).
(c) LisaDraw, Reg. No. PA 336 103, effective
May 1, 1987 (Exhibit C).
(d) MacDraw, Reg. No. PA 336 102, effective
May 1, 1987, a derivative work based on LisaDraw
(Exhibit D).
(e) MacPaint, Reg. No. PA 336 107, effective May 1, 1987
(Exhibit E).
(f) Lisa Project, Reg. No. PA 336 106, effective
May 1, 1987 (Exhibit F).
(g) Mac Project, Reg. No. PA 336 101, effective May 1,
1987 (Exhibit G).
Further, the computer programs that embody the audiovisual works
are protected literary works under the Copyright Act. Apple is
the owner of the following computer programs, each of which
substantially consists of material wholly original with Apple and
is copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Act:
(h) Macintosh Finder 1.0, Reg. No. TX 2 130 713,
effective August 25, 1987 (Exhibit H).
(i) MacDraw 1.7, Reg. No. TX 2 130 712, effective August
25, 1987 (Exhibit I).
(j) MacPaint 1.0, Reg. No. TX 2 130 711, effective August
25, 1987 (Exhibit J).
(k) MacProject 1.0, Reg. No. TX 2 130 714, effective
August 25, 1987 (Exhibit K).
(l) Macintosh ROM, Reg. No. TX 2 130 714, effective
September 12, 1985 and supplemental registration,
Reg. No. TX 2 043 375, effective April 14, 1987
(Exhibit L).
(m) Macintosh Plus ROM, Reg. No. TX 1 862 601, effective
August 5, 1986 (Exhibit M).
Collectively the above works are referred to herein as the "works
in suit" or the Macintosh audiovisual works."
11. At all times, Apple has been and is the sole owner of
all rights, title and interest in the works in suit. For each
work Apple has complied in all respects with the Copyright Act
and all other laws of the United States governing copyrights, and
has received Certificates of Registration from the Register
of Copyrights.
12. Hewlett-Packard sought a license from Apple for the
Macintosh audiovisual works which, on information and belief,
Hewlett-Packard intended to use in connection with computer
programs that would generate visual displays and images. Apple
declined to grant a license to its Macintosh audiovisual works.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,
that nonetheless Hewlett-Packard has developed a computer program
called "New Wave" which embodies and generates a copy of the
Macintosh audiovisual works. New Wave must be used in conjunction
with a computer program sold and distributed by Microsoft known
as "Windows 2.03." On information and belief, Hewlett-Packard is
licensed by Microsoft for the use of Windows 2.03 in connection
with New Wave. As used herein, the term "New Wave" includes any
and all visual displays and images generated by Windows 2.03 when
operating in conjunction with New Wave. The term "Windows 2.03"
is used herein to include all versions or revisions of that
product.
13. The visual displays and images generated by New Wave
are illegal and infringing copies of the Macintosh audiovisual
works and are unauthorized derivative works. Attached hereto are
photographs comparing various visual displays and images
generated by the Macintosh computer programs (Exhibit N1, N3, N5,
N7, and N9) and screen displays generated by New Wave (Exhibit
N2, N4, N6, N8, and N10). The similarity between New Wave and the
Macintosh visual displays and images is so great that even the
Hewlett-Packard product manager for New Wave in touting the
product has conceded publicly that New Wave is "similar to the
Macintosh." On information and belief, Hewlett-Packard had access
to the Macintosh audiovisual works. Hewlett-Packard's copying and
adaptation of the Macintosh audiovisual works in New Wave
infringe Apple's exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
14. The visual displays and images generated by Windows
2.03 are themselves illegal and infringing copies of the
Macintosh audiovisual works and are unauthorized derivative
works. Throughout its development of Windows 2.03, Microsoft had
access to the Macintosh audiovisual works. Microsoft's
distribution and sale of Windows 2.03 and its copying and
adaptation of the Macintosh audiovisual works exceed limited
license rights granted to Microsoft by Apple and infringe Apple's
exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
15. Defendants' copying and adaptation of the Macintosh
audiovisual works in New Wave and Windows 2.03 are unauthorized
by Apple and constitute willful infringement of the exclusive
rights reserved to Apple under the Copyright Act. By reason of
defendants' acts of infringement, Apple has suffered and will
continue to suffer, unless defendants' infringement is enjoined,
irreparable injury that cannot be adequately be remedied at law.
Because of such willful infringement, Apple is entitled to an
award of its attorneys fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. $ 505.
COUNT II
________
(Contributory Infringement)
16. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates herein the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above.
17. On information and belief, Microsoft has aided and
assisted Hewlett-Packard in using Windows 2.03 in conjunction
with New Wave. On information and belief, Microsoft has
facilitated, by purporting to grant license rights, and has
involved itself in the development of New Wave. By such conduct
Microsoft has and is continuing to contributorily infringe the
Macintosh audiovisual works.
18. By reason of Microsoft's acts of contributory
infringement, Apple has suffered and will continue to suffer,
unless Microsoft's conduct is enjoined, irreparable injury that
cannot be adequately remedied at law.
COUNT III
_________
(Unfair Competition)
19. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates herein the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 18 above.
20. The acts committed by defendants as alleged above
constitute unfair competition and unfair business practices in
violation of California Business and Professions Code $ 17200 et
seq. and common law.
21. Because of defendants' acts of unfair competition,
plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an
amount to be determined at trial.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
1. Enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, servants
and employees and those persons in active concert or
participation with them, from infringing or contributorily
infringing the works in suit in any manner, directly or
indirectly;
2. Enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, servants
and employees and those persons in active concert or
participation with them, from copying, selling, marketing,
distributing, or placing in interstate commerce their products
known as New Wave and Windows 2.03, or any version, revision or
modification thereof or any derivative work based thereon;
3. Entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and against
defendants declaring that defendants are infringing and have
infringed the works in suit and that defendant Microsoft has and
is contributorily infringing the works in suit;
4. Ordering defendants to account for all gains, profits
and advantage derived from their infringement of plaintiff's
copyrights;
5. Entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and against
defendants jointly and severally in an amount equal to the
damages sustained by the plaintiff and the profits earned by
defendants from the infringements alleged herein pursuant to 17
U.S.C. $ 504(b);
6. Entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and against
defendants jointly and severally for statutory damages in the
amount of $50,000 per infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. $
504(c);
7. Entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and against
defendants jointly and severally in an amount equal to
plaintiff's costs, including attorney's fees, pursuant to 17
U.S.C. $504(c);
7 [sic]. Entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and against
defendants jointly and severally ordering the impoundment and
destruction of all computer programs known as New Wave and
Windows 2.03, or any version, revision or modification thereof or
any derivative work based thereon;
8. Entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and against
defendants jointly and severally for all damages sustained by
plaintiff as a result of defendants' acts of unfair competition;
9. Ordering such other relief as is just and equitable in
the circumstances.
March 17, 1988
Jack E. Brown
BROWN & BAIN, P.A.
Post Office Box 400
222 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85001
Lois W. Abraham
Chris R. Ottenweller
Martin L. Lagod
Jeffrey D. Steinhardt
BROWN & BAIN
600 Hansen Way, Suite 100
Palo Alto, California 94306
By: <Martin L. Lagod>
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Apple Computer, Inc.
JURY DEMAND
___________
Apple hereby demands a jury trial of all its claims
against defendants.
By: <Martin L. Lagod>
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Apple Computer, Inc.aptr@ur-tut (The Wumpus) (03/22/88)
Apple is either getting cockey or just plain stupid. Do they really
think they can take on both HP and Microsoft? After all, the
technology they are talking about was developed by Xerox in the
seventies. (I actually had a chance to play with one of the Xerox
systems in 1982 when they wer about to be replaced.)
The person responsible for developing the Mac enviorment came from
Xerox PARC. Apple decided (or rather Jobbs decided) to hire him
because they had tried to write a system on their own and had really
botched it. My father was at PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) the day
Jobbs hired the guy (I can not think of his name). Jobbs came in in
the morning and in the afternoon, the guy walked out with Jobbs, never
to work for Xerox again. Apparently, Jobbs made an offer the guy
couldn't refuse.
Any one want to see Xerox sue the pants off of Apple?
One other point should be made. When Apple sued Digital Research, Inc
over GEM, most of the board of DRI was on the board at Apple. No
wonder DRI settled out of court. I really doubt if HP or Microsoft
would settle out of court.
--
The Wumpus UUCP: {cmcl2!decvax}!rochester!ur-tut!aptr
BITNET: aptrccss@uorvm
Internet: aptr@tut.cc.rochester.edu
Disclaimer: "Who? When? Me? It was the Booze!" - M. Binkleyrjung@sal6.usc.edu (Robert Jung) (03/22/88)
(No flames or anything, but...)
I think this is another sign of Apple's "anything with a mouse and a window
is OURS" attitude going too far.
I hope the courts throw this **STUPID** case out of the courts, and establish
the fact that a USER-INTERFACE shouldn't be copyrighted.
--R.J.
B-)
P.S. Gosh, if I had thought of this sooner, I could have copyrighted the use
of a KEYBOARD, and put hundreds of people out of work waaay back in the
beginning of computer-history...
______________________________________________________________________________
Bitnet: rjung@castor.usc.edu "Who needs an Amiga?" = == =
= == =
Power WithOUT the Price = == =
===== == =====
Just because it's 8-bits doesn't make it obsolete. ==== == ==== robert@sri-spam.istc.sri.com (Robert Allen) (03/22/88)
In article <1457@ur-tut.UUCP> aptr@tut.cc.rochester.edu.UUCP (The Wumpus) writes:
+
+The person responsible for developing the Mac enviorment came from
+Xerox PARC. Apple decided (or rather Jobbs decided) to hire him
+because they had tried to write a system on their own and had really
+botched it. My father was at PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) the day
+Jobbs hired the guy (I can not think of his name). Jobbs came in in
+the morning and in the afternoon, the guy walked out with Jobbs, never
+to work for Xerox again. Apparently, Jobbs made an offer the guy
+couldn't refuse.
+
+Any one want to see Xerox sue the pants off of Apple?
If Apple wins its' suit, and Xerox then sues Apple, it will
be doubly ironic since Apple will have spent the money to
develop a precedent which Xerox could then use to its' advantage.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Allen, robert@spam.istc.sri.com
415-859-2143 (work phone, days)
---------------------------------------------------------che@pbhyf.UUCP (Mitch Che) (03/22/88)
In article <4092@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> dumesny@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Alain Dumesny) writes: >>If there is sufficient interest, I am also willing to help >>coordinate the development of an amicus curiae brief opposing >>Apple's claims. > >NO ! ! I need a bit more information, which I hope the net can supply.. See below... >I hope that Apple will win, and that Microsoft will have to stop Window (or >give it a total different interface), because to me Window is a violation >to Apple rights (did you look at the windows, scroll bars, "elevators"..., >there is only a few differences, like the way you select an item from a >menu (you don't press the mouse button down while dragging, but rather click >again, which I must admit is better)). Since I've not used Windows, could someone provide more detail on this suit? There must be something to this "look and feel" argument that I'm missing. Apple isn't arguing that using a mouse, pointing at SOME kind of icon, pulling down SOME kind of menu, etc, is not available to other companies, are they? Is Apple saying "Apple's windows are square and can change size, MS can't use square windows that change size" or something else at that level. Or is MS Windows "origin" REALLY (wink, wink, nudge, nudge..) blatently easy to figure out? Inquiring minds want to know... -- Mitch Che Pacific Bell "Tape librarians will mount anything." --------------------------------------- Computerworld disclaimer, disclaimer, too 415-823-2454 uucp:ames!ptsfa!pbhyf!che
spector@vx2.GBA.NYU.EDU (David HM Spector) (03/22/88)
I hate to beat a dead horse, but since its gonna happen _anyway_:
1. The user interfaces of Xerox workstations and Macintoshes (and Lisa's) are
completely different. If you have used either of them there is no way you
could confuse them (I've used a bunch of Stars running various
incarnations of ViewPoint and I have had every Macintosh that's ever been,
with every released version of the Finder [Macintosh128-->MacintoshII]...).
2. Xerox did not invent the ___MACINTOSH___ user interface. Apple invented
the ___MACINTOSH___ user interface.
3. Apple did not steal anything from Xerox. Apple took inspiration from
work done at PARC and enhnaced it to the point where it was ready for market.
It has been pointed out before, that Apple had/has an agreement with Xerox
regarding Xerox technologies/designs, and that Xerox is a minority share-holder
in Apple. So, lets put this "stealing" stuff to bed. Apple stole NOTHING
from Xerox.
Parenthetically:
The closest you can get to the "stealing" concept would be calling the
Macintosh user interface a derived work, but then again, see Point #1 above.
Not really a derived work (unless a 50% grey desktop pattern is
copyrightable :-).
4. Apple is suing protect their 400 man-years of research in the Macintosh
interface and the human-engineering behind it. They have every right to do
this, if I had invented something as useful as the Macintosh desktop
interface, I sue people silly if they tried to ride my coat-tails too!
The real quetions is not if Apple is "right" in doing this, but whether or
not they'll settle out of court, or if they really want to taste blood...
_DHMS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David HM Spector New York University
Senior Systems Programmer Graduate School of Business
Arpa: SPECTOR@GBA.NYU.EDU Academic Computing Center
UUCP:...!{allegra,rocky,harvard}!cmcl2!spector 90 Trinity Place, Rm C-4
MCIMail: DSpector New York, New York 10006
AppleLink: D1161 CompuServe: 71260,1410 (212) 285-6080
"SJM 25, 'real nice guy' seeks SJF... What? This ISN'T The Voice personals?!"jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (J. Chris Cooley) (03/22/88)
In article <1457@ur-tut.UUCP>, aptr@ur-tut (The Wumpus) writes: > Apple is either getting cockey or just plain stupid. Do they really > think they can take on both HP and Microsoft? [ other stuff deleted ] We were discussing this thing at work and one important word came up: CLARIS. Could it be that Apple is re-claiming its alleged right to the windowing interface so Claris can get that much more hold on the marketplace? As for specifics, we got pretty cooky after this, but some of the things we mused over was Claris writing its own "Windows" and New Wave, and telling Microsoft to go jump in a lake with its "Word." --chris Disclaimer: Nothing we said was rumor or fact, just a bunch of silliness. Any damages you might incur from the above is your own fault.
kolding@ji.Berkeley.EDU (Eric Koldinger) (03/22/88)
In article <4092@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> dumesny@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Alain Dumesny) writes: >I totally agree with Apple's claims. I don't think that companies like >Microsoft or HP, or just anyone, has the right to copy the interface >Apple as created (or at least expanded from an original design at Xerox). > My understanding of the suit is that Apple is not trying to stop other companies from using the windows and icons interface, but to keep them from designing ones that look too much like the Mac interface. After all X-windows and SunTools are similar to the Mac interface, but not so much as to infringe on the "look-and-feel" of Apple. >I hope that Apple will win, and that Microsoft will have to stop Window (or >give it a total different interface), because to me Window is a violation >to Apple rights (did you look at the windows, scroll bars, "elevators"..., >there is only a few differences, like the way you select an item from a >menu (you don't press the mouse button down while dragging, but rather click >again, which I must admit is better)). Actually, the suit wouldn't affect Windows, since Microsoft licensed the "look-and-feel" from Apple. Apple claims now that some of the new Windows oriented programs go overboard on how closely they look like the Mac. More interesting though is what effect this suit would have on the OS/2 Presentation Manager. If IBM/Microsoft is held back from releasing that, Apple will effectively kill (or at least seriously cripple) OS/2, effectively giving them a huge lock on portions of the business market. _ /| Eric \`o_O' kolding@ji.berkeley.edu ( ) "Gag Ack Barf" {....}!ucbvax!ji!kolding U
campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) (03/22/88)
In article <4092@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> dumesny@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Alain Dumesny) writes:
<>
<>Apple has spent several years (four I think) and many, many man hours to
<>produce what is now recognized as a revolutionary way of working with
<>computers.
Apple only stole the great ideas developed at Xerox PARC. Check out the
Xerox Star -- a _great_ system, if a bit slow, and truly revolutionary at
the time. It preceded the Lisa and Mac by years. Maybe Xerox should sue
Apple?
<> I don't know if you remember, but when Apple introduced the
<>mac more than 4 years ago (January of 84), many PC users (as in IBM PC's)
<>laughed at the interface saying that mac will never be a serious
<>"business machine" with this icon based interface (remember that magazine
<>cover page with mac saying "hello" and an IBM PC saying "get lost" ?).
This is typical. The Mac bigots like to believe that business people
didn't instantly love the machine because its interface didn't fit into
some imagined authoritarian/grey-flannel/mainframe mentality. Nonsense.
The Mac was ridiculed -- justifiably -- because it had only 128K of memory,
no hard disk, no slots, no upgrade path, take it or leave it, bub!
Now it looks like Apple has finally produced their first real computer, the
Mac II. But before the Mac II came along the Mac was deservedly classed as
a cute little toy. (Overpriced, too.)
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Internet: campbell@maynard.bsw.com 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109
uucp: {husc6,mirror,think}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846ekwok@cadev4.intel.com (Edward C. Kwok) (03/23/88)
If I understand the Apple suit correctly, it is based on some copyrights that Apple registered. There is, of course, the gratuitous unfair competition charge. Apparently, to win, Apple must demonstrate that their copyrights are valid (my understanding is that copyrights are not valid until challenged and upheld by a court. I can be wrong, obviously.) The unfair competition charge will also fail if it can be shown that people will confuse the Microsoft and HP products with the Mac. Hardly a likely event, I think. From the picture I saw on newspapers, the HP product looks more like the generic "window" stuff on microvaxes, apollos and suns, than it is like the macintosh. I am sure HP, Microsoft will hire the best legal help money can procure. Xerox, of course, will take on the rest of the computer industry after this. (Bravo!) P.S. How much did Xerox close today? ;-)
mjy@sdti.UUCP (Michael J. Young) (03/23/88)
In article <5492@well.UUCP> rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) writes: > 12. Hewlett-Packard sought a license from Apple.... Apple >declined to grant a license to its Macintosh audiovisual works. >Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, >that nonetheless Hewlett-Packard has developed a computer program... > > 13.... The similarity between New Wave and the >Macintosh visual displays and images is so great that even the >Hewlett-Packard product manager for New Wave in touting the >product has conceded publicly that New Wave is "similar to the >Macintosh." Although it is certainly undesireable from a user's viewpoint, I'm not sure I agree that Apple's lawsuit is frivolous and without merit. First of all, even though the initial technology on which the Macintosh user interface is based was developed by Xerox, Apple has certainly added much to it. In fact, they've added enough to be granted multiple copyrights. Second, HP must have felt that the copyrights were valid, because they requested a license from Apple. Then they went ahead and violated the copyright after a license was denied. They then publicly described the product as conforming to the copyrighted 'look and feel'. I'm not a lawyer or judge, but if I saw this kind of blatant disregard for a copyright, I'd be inclined to award damages. I think the real issue here is whether or not the copyrights are valid. I have a philosophical problem with copyrighting 'look and feel'. But even given that the copyrights were granted, why didn't Apple grant HP a license? Probably because they wanted to charge a royalty, which HP refused to pay. What good is a copyright/patent if you can't profit from it? If I were HP, I'd be concerned about this suit. If I were Bill Gates, though, I wouldn't worry too much. Microsoft is a defendant mainly because NewWave requires Windows to run. Without knowing the content of the "secret" agreement between Apple and Microsoft, I doubt that a court would find that Windows violates any copyrights. My reason for feeling this way is that it isn't windowing itself that is copyrighted, but the icon/graphical interface. Windows doesn't enforce that interface, it merely enables a user to create and maniplate windows. It's what the user (like HP) does with that capability that keeps the lawyers in business. With all of that said, I think Apple is doing this for two reasons: 1) to delay the release of the OS/2 Presentation Manager (just like IBM is using legal threats to delay 3rd party release of Microchannel clones), and 2) as a test case. Not many companies are likely to want to give royalties to Apple. If Apple wins this suit, I'd be willing to bet that Apple will happily grant licenses to anyone who wants them, for a modest royalty. I'll bet HP would even get one! :-) HP's strategy, on the other hand, had better be to get the court to invalidate Apple's copyrights. I'd be willing to bet that this suit will be settled out of court, with Apple granting a license to HP, and HP paying a one-time license fee to Apple (no royalties). -- Mike Young - Software Development Technologies, Inc., Sudbury MA 01776 UUCP : {decvax,harvard,linus,mit-eddie}!necntc!necis!mrst!sdti!mjy Internet : mjy%sdti.uucp@harvard.harvard.edu Tel: +1 617 443 5779
timothym@tekigm2.TEK.COM (Timothy D Margeson) (03/23/88)
In article <1293@ut-emx.UUCP> jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (J. Chris Cooley) writes: >We were discussing this thing at work and one important word came up: >CLARIS......... Huh? What is CLARIS? I've not heard or seen the term before. Could some kind soul enlighten me, please! Thanks, in advance.... -- Tim Margeson (206)253-5240 PO Box 3500 d/s C1-937 @@ 'Who said that?' Vancouver, WA. 98668 {amd..hplabs}cae780!tektronix!tekigm2!timothym (this changes daily)
jwhitnel@csi.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) (03/23/88)
In article <1719@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> kolding@ji.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Eric Koldinger) writes: >My understanding of the suit is that Apple is not trying to stop other >companies from using the windows and icons interface, but to keep them >from designing ones that look too much like the Mac interface. After >all X-windows and SunTools are similar to the Mac interface, but not so >much as to infringe on the "look-and-feel" of Apple. Eric is correct here. Anyone who wants to understand what the suit is really about should first read the complaint (which some posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc) and then get ahold of the March 22, 1988 issue of MacintoshToday. On the front page is a pair of pictures, one of the Apple Macintosh DeskTop, the other is of NewWave by HP running under Microsoft Windows. One can see from the pictures that New Wave is derived from Apple's Finder. Some obvious ripoffs are the icons used for directories (file folders with tags), documents (a page with the corner folded) and the notorious trash can (called a Waste Basket in New Wave, but it even has the same lid that Apple's trash can does). This is essentialy the same reason that Apple went after DRI and why you won't see Apple going after Sun or other window system vendors. > >Actually, the suit wouldn't affect Windows, since Microsoft licensed the >"look-and-feel" from Apple. Actually Apple claims it gave Microsoft a limite license on an earlier version of Windows, but not for Windows 2.03 or Windows 386. Hence it could affect Microsft. >Apple claims now that some of the new Windows >oriented programs go overboard on how closely they look like the Mac. >More interesting though is what effect this suit would have on the OS/2 >Presentation Manager. If IBM/Microsoft is held back from releasing that, >Apple will effectively kill (or at least seriously cripple) OS/2, effectively >giving them a huge lock on portions of the business market. I imagine IBM will play it smart and get a license from Apple if at all possible. Apple can't keep IBM out but it can work to keep the PM from having anything similar to Apple's interface. > Eric Jerry Whitnell Been through Hell? Communication Solutions, Inc. What did you bring back for me? - A. Brilliant
phils@tekigm2.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub) (03/23/88)
In article <535@nunki.usc.edu> rjung@sal6.usc.edu (Robert Jung) writes: > [ deleted stuff about apple's suit against microsoft] > >P.S. Gosh, if I had thought of this sooner, I could have copyrighted the use >of a KEYBOARD, and put hundreds of people out of work waaay back in the >beginning of computer-history... >______________________________________________________________________________ >Bitnet: rjung@castor.usc.edu "Who needs an Amiga?" = == = > = == = > Power WithOUT the Price = == = > ===== == ===== > Just because it's 8-bits doesn't make it obsolete. ==== == ==== Don't laugh. As I recall, either RCA or GE has a patent on the use of CRTs for display of alpahnumeric characters generated as a scanned dot matrix. Sound familiar? Like in (virtually) every terminal and computer in existence. 8-< Phil -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phil Staub "I do NOT approve. I merely said I UNDERSTAND." tektronix!tekigm2!phils - Spock phils@tekigm2.TEK.COM
rap@ardent.UUCP (Rob Peck) (03/23/88)
In article <1293@ut-emx.UUCP>, jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (J. Chris Cooley) writes: > > In article <1457@ur-tut.UUCP>, aptr@ur-tut (The Wumpus) writes: > > Apple is either getting cockey or just plain stupid. Do they really > > think they can take on both HP and Microsoft? > [ other stuff deleted ] And then Apple can go after and and all of its developers who have had the audacity to take programs that made them some money running on Macs, and ported them to other environments hoping to make a few extra bucks on their original development efforts (perhaps reusing a goodly portion of the source code, some algorithms, and, heaven-forbid, the explicit-expression of the user-interface that made their program popular in the first place). This may be just the beginning. Users gonna lose a lot because of stifling of creativity, I think - unless maybe it forces the next-generation of user-interface upon us, just to get around a legal roadblock. Interesting. Re the New Wave, it would seem that Apple might have instituted the lawsuit to give it time to catch up - the New Wave is a significant advance in software integration WITH OR WITHOUT WINDOWS. Go look at the specs for what the "system" is supposed to do for integrating applications - I was impressed with the ideas they've come up with. Disclaimer: I worked as a consultant to HP 2 years ago, producing the first draft of the programmers' guide to interfacing to New Wave. Now that the program has been announced (and shipped?) I can see why someone might want to slow them down since these same features (kinda a fancy interprocess/interprogram communication) have not come out in other systems in that 2 years time. Hope HP has copyrighted/patented the idea - be a terrible thing if someone else did it too, without giving HP (more than just) a few bucks for coming up with it. Rob Peck ...ihnp4!hplabs!ardent!rap (everyone saw it coming... this wasn't REALLY a surprize, was it?)
stevewa@upvax.UUCP (Steve Ward) (03/23/88)
In article <2703@tekigm2.TEK.COM> timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) writes: >In article <1293@ut-emx.UUCP> jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (J. Chris Cooley) writes: >>We were discussing this thing at work and one important word came up: >>CLARIS......... > >Huh? > >What is CLARIS? I've not heard or seen the term before. Could some kind soul >enlighten me, please! Isn't Claris the name of the new company being set up to handle the software rights for all future Mac releases? And isn't Claris owned by employees or management of Apple? (past or present) If so, doesn't it look like the REAL reason for this suit is to give Claris a wide-open shot at a new market, namely all non-Macintosh users interested in a "point and click" interface? Sounds like Apple is less interested in their own rights, and more interested in bigger profits (as though they don't make enough on their own vastly overpriced hardware!)... Steve Ward stevewa@upvax.UUCP !tektronix!upvax!stevewa
rosenkra@Alliant.COM (Bill Rosenkranz) (03/23/88)
---------
apple has no way of claiming they invented (and own) window/mouse-type
computing environments. it seems to me that apollo was selling just that
circa 1980. sun has suntools and NeWS. MIT/DEC/IBM/... have X. what's
going on here? i'm sure if MS does it's homework, they can trace this
stuff way back to the 60's and 70's, long before apple even existed.
this suit is like trying to copyright the english language! but it
does give apple LOTS of free press ("say anything you want about us
as long as you spell our name right").
what a foolish waste of court time...
-billrogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) (03/23/88)
I talked to some people from HP today, and from their accounts I get the impression that the Apple "exhibits" were somewhat of a fabrication. The New Wave trashcan, for instance, is different from the Mac trashcan and appears in the upper left corner of the screen. The window borders in standard New Wave applications are also different than the ones pictured; they're thinner and can stretch the windows. And, most importantly, New Wave >works< very differently from the Mac. It uses DDE (Dynamic Data Exchange) to allow different parts of the SAME document to be acted on by different applications, even though the document appears in one window. You can use drawing commands on a picture, editing commands on the text, etc. without cutting and pasting or shifting to another window. I've only seen something like this done once elsewhere -- in a non-graphic program called "The Incredible Jack" distributed by Pecan software. It's actually a BIG step forward, and the "look and feel" really is substantially different. <rogue>
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (03/23/88)
I drive through El Segundo from time to time, which is where the original Xerox Star user interface was written. So I'm in this bar, hanging around the ferns, and I hear one Xerox muckety muck bald headed threepiece pinstripe type say to another that they have had a team of lawyers prepare a possible defense against an Apple look and feel lawsuit. -- ..who come from long lines of soldiers, | richard@gryphon.CTS.COM whose destiny was fulfilled, | ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax!gryphon!richard in the words of the warriors will, | rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard and protocol. | codas!ddsw1!gryphon!richard
aja@i.cc.purdue.edu (Miek Rowan) (03/24/88)
[much delete, everything vainly out of context :-] In article <4092@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, dumesny@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Alain Dumesny) writes: > > NO ! ! > > I totally agree with Apple's claims. I don't think that companies like > Microsoft or HP, or just anyone, has the right to copy the interface > Apple as created (or at least expanded from an original design at Xerox). So when apple wins, Xerox can then sue Apple, right? I mean you said yourself ms made windows better (maybe not by much...) > Apple has spent several years (four I think) and many, many man hours to > produce what is now recognized as a revolutionary way of working with > computers. I don't know if you remember, but when Apple introduced the > mac more than 4 years ago (January of 84), many PC users (as in IBM PC's) What about X, andrew, NeWs...etc...etc??? And ms didnt use Apples code so they went through almost as much in development costs.... the cost of the specs may have been slightly cheaper though. maybe, But if Apple didnt spec it out then, all that time is their own fault. Granted specs change, but if managment doesnt hand us ANY thing about what they want, you can sit back and say "this is going to be a LONG project" > When I said that Window looks like the mac interface I mean the "looks and > feel", not the inside of the program, which may have many > added/other/different features. This "look and feel" can go too far. Some hoser that clones lotus and doenst even try to improve interface, well they oughta be sued, being the unimagantive hoserboys they are.....but..... > As you probably would have guessed I am glad that I will never have to work > for IBM, even though I receive a job offer from them ! > (but Apple is another story :-) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is scary! > Alain--- > Cornell University > Electrical Engineering / Computer Science > > Usual disclaim .... those are my own opinions, etc ..... mine too. miek
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (03/24/88)
In article <1719@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> kolding@ji.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Eric Koldinger) writes: >>I hope that Apple will win, and that Microsoft will have to stop Window (or >>give it a total different interface), because to me Window is a violation >>to Apple rights (did you look at the windows, scroll bars, "elevators"..., >>there is only a few differences, like the way you select an item from a >>menu (you don't press the mouse button down while dragging, but rather click >>again, which I must admit is better)). > >Actually, the suit wouldn't affect Windows, since Microsoft licensed the >"look-and-feel" from Apple. Apple claims now that some of the new Windows >oriented programs go overboard on how closely they look like the Mac. Actually, the suit is *specifically* aimed at Windows 2.03 (the current version of Windows -- Windows/386 is just a clone of this, as is the unreleased Presentation Manager). From InfoWorld 3/21: "Apple asked the court to order the companies to stop copying, distribution, and sales of Microsoft Windows 2.03 and Hewlett-Packard's New Wave environment. Apple also seeks damages and the impounding and destruction of the programs. The suit states that Windows 2.03 exceeds the 'limited license rights' granted to Microsoft by Apple in a 1985 licensing agreement. However, Apple did not seek any immediate court action, such as a preliminary injunction." (p. 1) Here's some more interesting stuff, also from the same issue: "IBM has stated in the past that its licensing agreement protected it from Apple 'look and feel' lawsuits. 'That licensing agreement applied to all derivative products [of Windows],' said Michael Maples, IBM's director of software strategy and business evaluation, at a February press briefing. But Apple alleges its 1985 license applies only to earlier version of Windows. 'We have the license with Microsoft, and it is not our belief that it extends to derivations of Windows, said spokeswoman Barbara Krause. Apple's complaint states that Microsoft 'facilitated' Hewlett-Packard's infringement 'by purporting to grant license rights.'" (p. 85) This makes some sense, especially since the original version of Windows, covered under the 1985 license agreement, had only "tiled" windows (i.e., windows that could not be dragged around, rearranged and overlapped with the mouse). The current incarnation of Windows, which Microsoft claims is covered by the 1985 agreement since it was derived from the original Windows, is substantially different, and much more Mac-like. I think Apple has a case. It seems unlikely that the original license agreement would cover any and all modifications to Windows (as long as they were all "derived" from the original product). Going from "tiled" to overlapping windows is just one of the big changes Microsoft made since 1985 -- I don't remember if there were any others. On the other hand, I also have to agree with Andy Hertzfeld, who said: "When someone rips off the ROM, I think they should be strung up by the thumbs. But there's a difference between code and ideas. To try and sue over something as nebulous as this is bizarre. This makes the statement to the world that 'we can't come up with anything better, so we've got to protect what we did eight years ago.' If something's a knockoff, they might have a case. Windows isn't." (p. 85) Hope this rather lengthy summary sheds some light on just what's going on. -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." ...!cmcl2!esquire!sbb | - David Letterman
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (03/24/88)
In article <2706@tekigm2.TEK.COM> phils@tekigm2.UUCP (Philip E Staub) writes: >>P.S. Gosh, if I had thought of this sooner, I could have copyrighted the use >>of a KEYBOARD, and put hundreds of people out of work waaay back in the >>beginning of computer-history... >Don't laugh. As I recall, either RCA or GE has a patent on the use of CRTs >for display of alpahnumeric characters generated as a scanned dot matrix. >Sound familiar? Like in (virtually) every terminal and computer in >existence. This is true. I seem to recall it was Sylvania, but in any case, a logic analyzer company I worked for years ago was notified that we were infringing on this patent. They offered to license us for the nominal fee of something like $10 per unit (~$10k machine). Too small to fight, really. What this would have given them, besides pocket change, is an accurate knowledge of our sales figures, something our competitors would dearly have love to have. As I recall, that patent was under litigation, and the company took a "wait and see" stance. I've no idea if the case has been resolved.. and my old company no longer exists. Patents can be useful for all sorts of things, if you have the right ones. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill
pfeifer@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Mark C Pfeifer) (03/24/88)
Claris is the subsitiary of Apple that is in charge of the application software - they have just released new versions of MacPaint, MacDraw, MacWrite, etc. Mark
sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) (03/24/88)
In article <11830@sri-spam.istc.sri.com> robert@sri-spam.istc.sri.com (Robert Allen) writes: > In article <1457@ur-tut.UUCP> aptr@tut.cc.rochester.edu.UUCP (The Wumpus) writes: > + > +The person responsible for developing the Mac enviorment came from > +Xerox PARC. Apple decided (or rather Jobbs decided) to hire him > +because they had tried to write a system on their own and had really > +botched it. My father was at PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) the day > +Jobbs hired the guy (I can not think of his name). Actually, the guy that Apple hired away from Xerox PARC (Larry Tesler?) didn't invent a lot of those ideas either. Let me quote from an article entitled "A Display-Oriented Programmer's Assistant," by Warren Teitelman: The idea of a display composed of multiple, overlapping regions called "windows" is attributable to and an essential part of the Smalltalk programming system designed and implemented by the Learning Research Group at Xerox Research Center. In particular, ... the work of Dan Ingalls on the Smalltalk user interface. The idea of using the display as a means for allowing the user to retain comprehension of complex program environments, and to monitor several simultaneous tasks, can be found in the work of Dan Swinehart [who wrote about this while at the Stanford AI Lab in 1974]. The use of the "mouse" as a pointing device for selecting portions of a display goes back to the early work on NLS [written up by Englebart and English in 1967!]. As I heard the story, the Xerox researchers adopted the version of the mouse that Doug Englebart had developed in 1973. So anyway, *none* of these things is original with Apple; I hope that the defendants call Dan Englebart, Adele Goldberg, and/or Dan Swinehart as witnesses. That might kill Apple's lawsuit game once and for all.... Steven Litvintchouk MITRE Corporation Burlington Road Bedford, MA 01730 Fone: (617)271-7753 ARPA: sdl@mitre-bedford.arpa UUCP: ...{cbosgd,decvax,genrad,ll-xn,mit-eddie,philabs,utzoo}!linus!sdl "Those who will be able to conquer software will be able to conquer the world." -- Tadahiro Sekimoto, president, NEC Corp.
suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) (03/24/88)
In article <1473@alliant.Alliant.COM> rosenkra@alliant.UUCP (Bill Rosenkranz) writes: > >apple has no way of claiming they invented (and own) window/mouse-type >computing environments. >-bill Is this the point? Visicalc existed before Lotus 123. Both of them are spreadsheets as many of you know. When Lotus Corp. brought 123 clone companies to court, Lotus' argument was that they had copied Lotus' look and feel. Of course I may be wrong... /ken Kenneth Suh PATH: suh@CUNIXC.COLUMBIA.EDU 312 McBain Hall, C/O Carman Hall SY.SUH@CU20B.BITNET Columbia University ..!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!suh New York, NY 10027
wilkes@mips.COM (John Wilkes) (03/24/88)
In article <1473@alliant.Alliant.COM> rosenkra@alliant.UUCP (Bill Rosenkranz) writes: >apple has no way of claiming they invented (and own) window/mouse-type >computing environments. it seems to me that apollo was selling just that >circa 1980. sun has suntools and NeWS. MIT/DEC/IBM/... have X. what's I believe that it is generally accepted that the mouse was invented by Doug Englebart while he was at SRI. They did alot of research into alternative methods of human-computer interaction. Originally, the mouse was used with a keypad thingie that had 4 piano-key-shaped keys. The mouse had three buttons on it, and this allowed for many combinations since the mouse buttons and keypad keys could be used together. Doug can probably type faster using that setup than a regular keyboard. They also experimented with footpedals and knee pads. This made for a more active interaction with the computer - sort of looked like dancing. The foot/knee pedals did not survive the test of time. This was back in the sixties, I believe; pretty weird stuff for its time. There are undoutedly many papers that one could dig up describing the work. Doug Englebart now works for McDonnell Douglas (nee Tymshare, which bought the entire project from SRI and made it a product). (Dis)claimer: Once upon a time, I worked for Doug Englebart at Tymshare. -John Wilkes -- -- @work: -- {decwrl,ames,pyramid,prls}!mips!wilkes -- OR, for those of great faith: -- wilkes@mips.com
lupin3@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (-=/ Larry Hastings /=-) (03/24/88)
+-In article <371@esquire.UUCP>, sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen Baumgarten) wrote:- | | [an excellent, well-read summary of the lawsuit. If you haven't read this | message, I would advise you take the time to hunt it down and read it.] | +---------- Which brings me to the reason why I am posting... Forgive me, but I have had my head buried in the sand as of recent, and have heard of this "New Wave" product only in messages concerning this lawsuit. What is "New Wave", what does it do, why is it worth suing over? One person said something about "having two applications using different parts of the same data at the same time", which is intriguing but not very descriptive. Is "New Wave" out yet? Could I get a demo of it at my local EggHead/ComputerLand? Does it work with any product you would care to name, or just with "New Wave" compatible products? I'd like some facts, people, cold hard facts. But, I'd also like some warm, soft opinions... I have used Windows very little (read that, not at all but I may go try it out at work; I think there may be a copy floating around) and have no idea what "New Wave" is like. In _your_ opinion, is Apple justified in its lawsuit? Not based on your love of the Mac, or your love of the PC (does ANYONE _really_ love the PC?); but based on your somewhat solidly formed, and INformed, opinion on the products themselves. -- /|\ /|\ .. . . . . . . . . . . | |\| |\| .. . . . . . . . . . . |/|\|/|\|/|| _ _ _ _ |_| _ _ |_ -__ _ _ARPA: lupin3@ucscb.ucsc.EDU | |/| |/|L_ (_\( ( (_/ | |(_\_) (_ || )(_)_)UUCP: *!ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!lupin3 \|/ \|/ larry / hastings _/ BITNET: lupin3@ucscb@ucscc.BITNETMetaWare Inc "I saved Esquire readers from exploding pies." --Michael J. Fox Sail the High C! Disclaimer:[MetaWare, UCSC] -> opinion != lhastings -> opinion
parora@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Pavneet Arora) (03/24/88)
In addition to suing uSoft and HP, Apple has decided to sue XEROX for
retroactive infringement on Apple's copyrights. This includes copyrights
on the concept of computer, use of the english alphabet etc. ( 8{) ).
Would someone please tell me when computers became a busy-ness? I must have
missed that posting.
pavneet arora
parora@utgpu
PS. I guess this means we forget about X-Windows and NeWS since they use...
you know the 'w' word (Oh my gosh - I almost said it that time).peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (03/24/88)
In article ... robert@sri-spam.istc.sri.com (Robert Allen) writes: > If Apple wins its' suit, and Xerox then sues Apple, it will > be doubly ironic since Apple will have spent the money to > develop a precedent which Xerox could then use to its' advantage. Truth is stranger than fiction. Atari set the original precedent for visual copyrights, back when they were suing everyone over Pac-Man. Atari was one of the losers in the Apple-vs-GEM lawsuit. I doubt that Xerox can sue Apple, since I doubt the license they sold Apple was anywhere near as restrictive as the one Apple sold Microsoft. -- -- a clone of Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva `-_-' -- normally ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter U -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
gll2139@ritcv.UUCP (Gerard L. Lanois) (03/24/88)
In article <1457@ur-tut.UUCP> aptr@tut.cc.rochester.edu.UUCP (The Wumpus) writes: >Apple is either getting cockey or just plain stupid. Do they really >think they can take on both HP and Microsoft? After all, the >technology they are talking about was developed by Xerox in the >seventies. (I actually had a chance to play with one of the Xerox >systems in 1982 when they wer about to be replaced.) > >The person responsible for developing the Mac enviorment came from >Xerox PARC. Apple decided (or rather Jobbs decided) to hire him [...] >Apparently, Jobbs made an offer the guy >couldn't refuse. > >Any one want to see Xerox sue the pants off of Apple? yes Yes YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (drool, drool, pant, pant, pant, snicker, pant...) [...] >-- >The Wumpus UUCP: {cmcl2!decvax}!rochester!ur-tut!aptr > BITNET: aptrccss@uorvm > Internet: aptr@tut.cc.rochester.edu >Disclaimer: "Who? When? Me? It was the Booze!" - M. Binkley ============================================================ = Gerard L. Lanois - Rochester INSTITUTION of Technology = = ...rutgers!rochester!ritcv!gll2139 = = gll2139@ritvax.bitnet PO Box 20246, Rochester, NY = = gll2139@ritcv.UUCP 14602 = ============================================================
bobmon@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (outsider) (03/25/88)
Apple might "win" this if they can merely tie up Presentation Manager et al for a few months -- Some market lead time can be enough to make or break a product, regardless of eventual lawsuit outcomes.
rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) (03/25/88)
In article <371@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: >This makes some sense, especially since the original version of >Windows, covered under the 1985 license agreement, had only "tiled" >windows (i.e., windows that could not be dragged around, rearranged >and overlapped with the mouse). This is incorrect. The original version of Windows had the capability to do both kinds of windows. The tiled windows were merely the most often-used option, since "religion" at Microsoft had it that this was the best way to use screen space. IBM insisted that overlapping windows be used to conform to its SAA interface, so they became the default in Windows 2.0. <rogue>
peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) (03/25/88)
> Sounds like Apple is less interested in their own rights, and more interested > in bigger profits (as though they don't make enough on their own vastly > overpriced hardware!)... Of course Apple is mainly interested in bigger profits. They're a business. First and foremost. As is IBM and all the rest. As I see it, their number one goal is to make more money and the bigger their market slice is, the bigger their profits (theoretically). I found it very amusing that shortly after Apple announced the Mac II (the first "open" Mac), IBM announced the PS/2 Model 25--a PC in a one piece suit and virtually closed, just like the original Mac. Maybe Apple should sue them for that as well! :-) -- Peter Steele, Microcomputer Applications Analyst Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada B0P1X0 (902)542-2201x121 UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}dalcs!aucs!Peter BITNET: Peter@Acadia Internet: Peter%Acadia.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
grina@soleil.UUCP (Pete Grina) (03/25/88)
In article <2706@tekigm2.TEK.COM>, phils@tekigm2.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub) writes: > Don't laugh. As I recall, either RCA or GE has a patent on the use of CRTs > for display of alpahnumeric characters generated as a scanned dot matrix. > Sound familiar? Like in (virtually) every terminal and computer in > existence. > Phil As the self-appointed official CRT licensing fee collector (you should see my business cards (:-) ) I am now selling CRT licenses to the public. For only $19.95, you get a license that slices, dices, and makes julienne fries! Wait! There's more! Order before midnight tonight and get your official GE/RCA Brain Scrambler. That's right! Just put the scramber next to your brain, add milk, turn it on, and PRESTO! Next thing you know, you'll be posting crap like this. Pete, you're scum Disclaimer: These views are not necessarily those of Genital Electric, General Electric, or even GE.
zach@mruxb.UUCP (J Z Shoher) (03/25/88)
In article <1473@alliant.Alliant.COM>, rosenkra@alliant.UUCP writes: > apple has no way of claiming they invented (and own) window/mouse-type > computing environments. it seems to me that apollo was selling just that > circa 1980. sun has suntools and NeWS. MIT/DEC/IBM/... have X. what's > going on here? > > -bill John Dvorak wrote a column in the latest (?) PC Magazine (the cover announces a comparison of low-end desktop publishing pkgs) in which he talks about: what users have in store for themselves if Microsoft Windows/ IBM Presentation Manager doesn't get picked up by the user community. His thesis is that we're all in for some troubled times if this happens, since graphic interface technology would be left in the hands of a company which seems to understand only the word "proprietary". John wrote his column months before the Apple suit against Microsoft and HP, but it seems to be right on the money. Zach Shoher "The above opinions are mine and mine alone"
normd@tekigm2.TEK.COM (Norman S. Dancer) (03/25/88)
I keep hoping for these things to stop, but they don't! Please! Edit the newsgroups line and the followup-to line. In the meantime, is there any way to place in a "kill" file, any article with more than two newsgroups? I, personally, don't care to read what most people prefer to broadcast. Please excuse the mild flame. It's morning, and I have a headache, and it's raining, and I had a flat tire, and - and ...
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (03/26/88)
Keywords: Apple Mac HP Microsoft Windows OS/2 New Wave Frivolous Litigation In article <1293@ut-emx.UUCP>, jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (J. Chris Cooley) writes: > In article <1457@ur-tut.UUCP>, aptr@ur-tut (The Wumpus) writes: > > Apple is either getting cockey or just plain stupid. Do they really > > think they can take on both HP and Microsoft? > [ other stuff deleted ] I wonder, too, if Apple's seen the new HP computerized lab equipment, like the cool timing analyzer I've been playing with here. No mouse installed (it's optional), but via it's touch screen you get pull down menus, requesters/ dialog boxes, gadgets, whatever you call them. Certainly looks more Mac-like than Amiga like, but if Apple trys to take this away from me, I'm gonna get mean. At least there's a better chance of any of this really going to court and getting settled, for better or worse, this time. DRI was a hurtin' cowboy when Apple went after them, certainly HP and MicroSoft are strong companies and hopefully won't be pushed around. -- Dave Haynie "The B2000 Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (03/26/88)
Apple is not challenging MS's use of mousies and windows, but of the use of windows with a specifically drawn bar on the top, a specifically drawn close gadget on the upper left, and all those specifically rendered images of specific buttons and controls all around the border. It is saying that MS's copy is so close as to confuse a legal mind over whose product it is. It is my opinion that Apple has a legitimate and moral right to protect their commercial art (a contradiction?) just like any logo or trademark. If MS wants windows, dialog boxes, file icons, etc., that may be ok, but they must "look and feel" different from the ones Apple uses so that you will be able to tell the products apart. MS might even be able to get away with putting them in the same place on the screen if they were drawn differently. making an argument that the placement on the screen was dictated by function, not by art. (There is even some evidence in the human factors literature for this). DRI redrew their window stuff and escaped (with an undisclosed settlement). Commodore redrew their window stuff in an effort to preempt a lawsuit by Apple for the same reason.
miket@uop.edu (Mike Thompson) (03/26/88)
>In article <1293@ut-emx.UUCP>, jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (J. Chris Cooley) writes: >> >> In article <1457@ur-tut.UUCP>, aptr@ur-tut (The Wumpus) writes: >> > Apple is either getting cockey or just plain stupid. Do they really >> > think they can take on both HP and Microsoft? >> [ other stuff deleted ] It is curious that Apple did not make mention of IBM (At least I don't think they did) in their law suit over the development of IBM's SAA (Systems Application Arch. -- I think :-)) which will make heavy use of overlaying windows similar to that of the OS/2 Presentation Manager. They also could have included IBM, since I believe IBM is also co-developer of OS/2's PM. Could it be that they are not really ready to play hard ball where the legal expenses of hassling with IBM could ruin Apple. I think that Apple is testing the legal waters of Look-and-Feel law suits by taking on WINDOWS and NEW WAVE and hope to set a court precident while going against relatively equal contenders (MICROSOFT AND HP) before taking on IBM with OS/2 PM. If they did win the case ( at least to the point where they did effect the look of WINDOWS or NEW WAVE) it would perhaps give Apple the incentive to go after more look-alike windowing systems like those on Sun's, Amiga's, Atari's (to beat up GEM again!!!) and, of course, IBM's newer systems. I hate to think that Apple could start the equivalent of China's Cultural revolution in this countries computer community. It would also be a strange position for the rest of us relying on IBM's big stick (big $$$$$$$) to defend creativity and enhance competition in the computer industry. These are my own rambling thoughts so don't take them too seriously, but I would appreciate any comments. Mike Thompson, University of the Pacific P.S. At least we now now Apple has BALLS. :^)
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (03/26/88)
In article <5526@well.UUCP> rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) writes: >In article <371@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: > >>This makes some sense, especially since the original version of >>Windows, covered under the 1985 license agreement, had only "tiled" >>windows (i.e., windows that could not be dragged around, rearranged >>and overlapped with the mouse). > >This is incorrect. The original version of Windows had the capability >to do both kinds of windows. The tiled windows were merely the most >often-used option, since "religion" at Microsoft had it that this was >the best way to use screen space. IBM insisted that overlapping windows >be used to conform to its SAA interface, so they became the default >in Windows 2.0. > ><rogue> Thanks, I stand corrected. But it scares me to think that, at least in this instance, I agree with IBM about human interfaces... -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." ...!cmcl2!esquire!sbb | - David Letterman
laba-5ac@web5h.berkeley.edu (Erik Talvola) (03/26/88)
In article <512@cunixc.columbia.edu> suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) writes: <>In article <1473@alliant.Alliant.COM> rosenkra@alliant.UUCP (Bill Rosenkranz) writes: <>> <>>apple has no way of claiming they invented (and own) window/mouse-type <>>computing environments. <>>-bill <> <>Is this the point? Visicalc existed before Lotus 123. Both of them are <>spreadsheets as many of you know. When Lotus Corp. brought 123 clone <>companies to court, Lotus' argument was that they had copied Lotus' <>look and feel. Of course I may be wrong... <> <>/ken <> > I believe that you are right, but I am also pretty sure that Lotus purchased VisiCorp (who produced VisiCalc), so Lotus probably did have a right to claim that the look and feel of the Lotus 123 was theirs, since they owned the company which created it. -- Erik --------------------------------------------------- Erik Talvola laba-5ac@widow.berkeley.edu "I don't impress easy." -- Jesse "The Body" Ventura ---------------------------------------------------
jetzer@studsys.mu.edu (jetzer) (03/26/88)
In article <336@upvax.UUCP>, stevewa@upvax.UUCP (Steve Ward) writes: > Isn't Claris the name of the new company being set up to handle the software > rights for all future Mac releases? And isn't Claris owned by employees or > management of Apple? (past or present) If so, doesn't it look like the REAL > reason for this suit is to give Claris a wide-open shot at a new market, > namely all non-Macintosh users interested in a "point and click" interface? > > Sounds like Apple is less interested in their own rights, and more interested > in bigger profits (as though they don't make enough on their own vastly > overpriced hardware!)... It seems that developers are not too happy about Apple being in the software business. They figure that anything that has the 'made by Apple' sticker on it has an unfair advantage. To keep people happy, Apple decided not to publish any software (other than system-type software). This gave rise to Claris. It can be argued, no doubt, that Claris *is* Apple (at least in the beginning), but technically, Apple is no longer in the software business.
jesup@pawl15.pawl.rpi.edu (Randell E. Jesup) (03/26/88)
In article <249@sdti.UUCP> mjy@sdti.UUCP (0000-Michael J. Young) writes: >First of all, even though the initial technology on which the Macintosh >user interface is based was developed by Xerox, Apple has certainly added >much to it. In fact, they've added enough to be granted multiple >copyrights. Not only the technology, but also the 'look and feel' (see Xerox Star). Not the same, but similar. Also, Apple was not 'granted' copyrights, they just filed copyrights. Said copyrights have not been tested in court. >Second, HP must have felt that the copyrights were valid, because they >requested a license from Apple. Then they went ahead and violated the >copyright after a license was denied. Maybe HP just wanted to avoid paying to defend in a law suit? Asking for license is NOT an admittal of a copyrights validity, or of infringment. > But even >given that the copyrights were granted, why didn't Apple grant HP a >license? Probably because they wanted to charge a royalty, which HP >refused to pay. What good is a copyright/patent if you can't profit >from it? More likely Apple refused to consider it. Nothing says you have to license your properties to potential competitors. Also, I think Apple was hunting for bear. >With all of that said, I think Apple is doing this for two reasons: 1) to >delay the release of the OS/2 Presentation Manager (just like IBM is >using legal threats to delay 3rd party release of Microchannel clones), and Probably. >2) as a test case. Not many companies are likely to want to give royalties >to Apple. If Apple wins this suit, I'd be willing to >bet that Apple will happily grant licenses to anyone who wants them, for >a modest royalty. I'll bet HP would even get one! :-) Yup, and there's a tooth fairy out there too. :-) I don't believe that for a second, it would be highly counterproductive. I would suspect that they hope for something that helps limit the amount that other companies can do in the area, as well as frightening developers that are porting Mac programs to other envirionments. // Randell Jesup Lunge Software Development // Dedicated Amiga Programmer 13 Frear Ave, Troy, NY 12180 \\// beowulf!lunge!jesup@steinmetz.UUCP (518) 272-2942 \/ (uunet!steinmetz!beowulf!lunge!jesup) BIX: rjesup (-: The Few, The Proud, The Architects of the RPM40 40MIPS CMOS Micro :-)
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/27/88)
In article <8037@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> laba-5ac@web5h.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Erik Talvola) writes: >I believe that you are right, but I am also pretty sure that Lotus purchased >VisiCorp (who produced VisiCalc), so Lotus probably did have a right to claim >that the look and feel of the Lotus 123 was theirs, since they owned the >company which created it. You may be sure of this, but that doesn't make it true. Lotus purchased Software Arts, Inc., the authors of VisiCalc. They did not purchase VisiCorp, the publishers and marketers. VisiCorp was merged with Paladin, which later went Chapter 11, and has recently been brought out again as VisiCorp. There is a lawsuit against Lotus at this time, (a bit late, mind you) suggesting that the reason that Lotus was able to buy out Software Arts was that Lotus drove Software Arts and Visicorp out of business by copying the spreadsheet interface of Visicalc. The issue is far more complex than that, but there is some truth to that claim. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jellinghaus-robert@CS.YALE.EDU (Rob Jellinghaus) (03/27/88)
In article <332@ardent.UUCP> rap@ardent.UUCP (Rob Peck) writes: >This may be just the beginning. Users gonna lose a lot because of stifling >of creativity, I think - unless maybe it forces the next-generation of >user-interface upon us, just to get around a legal roadblock. Interesting. When I first heard about the Apple suit, I almost got riled about it. But upon reflection, I don't think it will make all that much difference to the computing industry in five or ten years. Nobody will be using the Mac interface in ten years. What *will* they be using? I think it's possible that suits like this one will help/force companies to create the next generation of user interfaces. You know, the ones that will be to the Mac interface what the Mac interface was to previous (non-window, non-graphic) interfaces.... I can't wait! >Rob Peck ...ihnp4!hplabs!ardent!rap > >(everyone saw it coming... this wasn't REALLY a surprize, was it?) No, it had to happen sooner or later... it'll be interesting no matter who wins. Rob Jellinghaus | "In my heart... I know I'm funny." jellinghaus@yale.edu | ROBERTJ@{yalecs,yalevm}.BITNET | -- Lieutenant (?) Hawke in !..!ihnp4!hsi!yale!jellinghaus | _Good Morning Vietnam_
rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) (03/27/88)
If DRI, Microsoft, etc. were guilty of infringement because they used such things as menus, trashcans, and other such devices, then Apple is equally guilty on at least one count. The "zoom box," which causes a window to fill the screen, first appeared in GEM. (Be sure to add this to the list of "firsts" in comp.windows.misc.) <rogue>
benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (03/27/88)
In article <1302@uop.edu>, miket@uop.edu (Mike Thompson) writes:
# I hate to think that Apple could start the equivalent of China's
# Cultural revolution in this countries computer community. It would also
# be a strange position for the rest of us relying on IBM's big stick
# (big $$$$$$$) to defend creativity and enhance competition in the
# computer industry.
You know a company has seen its peak when it depends on lawsuits and
not creativity to maintain its perceived edge. I think Apple will
have a difficult time winning this one...the situation is reminescent
of the recent lawsuit that DEC lost when they claimed that the SVID
was proprietary.
-------------
Naturally my opinions are my own and not those of my employer.aleks@well.UUCP (Brian J. Witt) (03/27/88)
[eat me... eat me] It seems this is more an effort to slow research activities of these two companies (HP and microsoft). It may be DEC... it may be large --CENSORED-- [stricly my opinion!!!!! use at your own risk!!!!]
romero@mind.UUCP (Antonio Romero) (03/28/88)
In article <25828@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, jellinghaus-robert@CS.YALE.EDU (Rob Jellinghaus) writes: > I think it's > possible that suits like this one will help/force companies to create the next > generation of user interfaces. You know, the ones that will be to the Mac > interface what the Mac interface was to previous (non-window, non-graphic) > interfaces.... I can't wait! But what happens then when the person or company with the rights to the next generation interface usesd Apple's precedent to justify their own lawsuit to protect their interface technology... (I can see the response: "Well, then another interface comes out, and so on...") Maybe software in general still needs human factors help. But I don't think having the legal question drive the growth of interface technology is the way we want to see things happen. For one thing, companies desparate to get something to market will produce bastardized versions of things that will change enough to be legal, probably at the expense of usability. For another, when a good system does come out, only the patrons of one computer maker/software house will be able to get access to it. If you want the Mac desktop, you'll have to turn to Apple, if you want the HP style interface, you must buy an HP, etc... Just imagine for a moment what it would be like if every car maker had to have completely different control placement because Henry Ford (or whoever came up with it) had copyright protection for the steering wheel/gearshift/pedals approach used to set up most vehicles... Oy. I really don't think this is going to help anyone. If Apple wins this case the legal precedent this sets could be a nightmare for software companies among others for decades to come... Antonio Romero romero@suspicion.Princeton.EDU
zeeff@b-tech.UUCP (Jon Zeeff) (03/29/88)
I think a solution to these "look and feel" suits is for products to be shipped with a user selectable interface. The user could arrange the menus and select the icons that he wants to use. If he happens to select something that looks like someone else's interface, it's not the developers problem. -- Jon Zeeff Branch Technology, uunet!umix!b-tech!zeeff zeeff%b-tech.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu
dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) (03/29/88)
In article <5541@well.UUCP> rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) writes: >If DRI, Microsoft, etc. were guilty of infringement because they used >such things as menus, trashcans, and other such devices, then Apple is >equally guilty on at least one count. The "zoom box," which causes a >window to fill the screen, first appeared in GEM. (Be sure to add this to >the list of "firsts" in comp.windows.misc.) > ><rogue> The above comment is absurd -- The 'zoom box' has been used in various windowing environments for years, and predates GEM by at least four or five. I've used pre-GEM windowing workstations that not only had zoom boxes, but could either scale or clip the window, depending on the application and the user's desires. When it comes right down to it, GEM is a poor example of a general windowing system. It is, however, what we have on the ST, and what we must use. Not only have I seen and used better, I've designed and written better. (No, I won't say where or on what product or who I did it for, but I did it before the introduction of the ST or GEM.) -- Daniel A. Glasser dag@chinet.UUCP One of those things that goes "BUMP!!! (ouch!)" in the night. ...!att-ih!chinet!dag | ...!ihnp4!mwc!dag | ...!ihnp4!mwc!gorgon!dag
rpw3@amdcad.AMD.COM (Rob Warnock) (03/29/88)
In article <2706@tekigm2.TEK.COM> phils@tekigm2.UUCP (Philip E Staub) writes: >Don't laugh. As I recall, either RCA or GE has a patent on the use of CRTs >for display of alpahnumeric characters generated as a scanned dot matrix. This is TRUE! ...as we learned at Fortune Systems a few years ago. And by the way, it's RCA, and the patent covers virtually any scanned dot matrix. If you make video displays, eventually RCA comes a'knocking... Rob Warnock Systems Architecture Consultant UUCP: {amdcad,fortune,sun,attmail}!redwood!rpw3 ATTmail: !rpw3 DDD: (415)572-2607 USPS: 627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403
wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) (03/29/88)
In article <4328@b-tech.UUCP>, zeeff@b-tech.UUCP (Jon Zeeff) writes: > I think a solution to these "look and feel" suits is for products to be > shipped with a user selectable interface. The user could arrange the menus > and select the icons that he wants to use. If he happens to select something > that looks like someone else's interface, it's not the developers problem. This is exactly what Borland did with Quattro. Quattro comes with its own interface installed but a user has the tools to install a Lotus like interface or one of their own making. I think that this may be a good approach for developers of software that may infinge on another programmers "territory". Whatever happened to standards? Bill Wilson
zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (03/29/88)
The two arguments I have seen in this newsgroup and in the press against Apple's suit are 1) That Apple should allow the industry to standardize around a Macintosh-like user interface, and 2) That user interfaces are so alike that all usable, efficient user interfaces look like the Macintosh user interface. Balderdash to both these arguments. Apple's lawsuit is appealing to me because it states that if you don't have the basic guts to try to do Apple one better, then you deserve to be sued. Microsoft certainly have the talent and the wherewithal to create a next-generation user interface tool and not a "derivative work." Why don't they use it? Apple's intellectual property rights would not then be violated and we the users might be much better off. VisiOn, Generra, and Sun's window systems are all examples of user interface technologies which are not derivative works and Apple has no problem with them. And Apple's work is sufficiently different both in look and in capability from Xerox's SmallTalk browser that, apart from Apple's claim to "broad licences" from Xerox, there is no need for legal struggles in that area. Except for Apple's timing, which seems calculated to further increase the FUD factor surrounding OS/2, I see no reason why Apple should not go after gratuitous copying when equal and better alternatives are available. "Originality, it's not just a good idea, it's the law." -- Joe Biden never said this -Zigurd -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Zigurd Mednieks MURSU Corporation (617)424-0146 25 Exeter Street Boston, MA 02116
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (03/30/88)
The merit of Apples claims about HP copying their environment seems less to me after having looked that the photos in this week's Infoworld. New Wave, as shiped from HP doesn't really look very much like a MacIntosh desktop To quote breifly with attribution from the Inforworld article's sidebar accompanying the photos:... "HP calls New wave an `applications environment,' and users can reconfigure the interface and make it as much like -- or unlike -- the Mac as desired. A screen shot of New Wave supplied by Apple is virtually identical to the Mac Interface HP officials said, but differs greatly from the default interface HP will supply to users." It does seem like strectching things a bit for apple. It is like saying that MSDOS is a programming environment, and someone may write a program using msdos system calls that results in a MacIntosh-like display, thus MSDOS is a violation of Apple's visual copyright. As I said previously, what the Apple suit looks like to me is a shrewd business descission to throw cold water on IBM windowing software developers. I suppose that some developers will shelve their OS/2 plans and continue their MacIntosh development in the interim. This would help Apple keep its software lead for a while longer. Apple is really just using IBM's well known FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) weapon. Personally, I don't like Apple's business descision. My office was making plans to add a MacIntosh II running A/ux; in light of the Apple suit, I am considering a change to the PS/2 mod 80 or Compaq 386/20 and SCO Xenix. Actually, at the moment, the Compaq looks like the best bet since we already have a substantial expense in XT/AT bus based peripheral devices. We had been interested in the Mac II because of its Nubus. Additionally, I had the oportuninty to set up an A/ux system in a consulting job, and disovered that A/ux still has quite a few unfinished corners. If Apple keeps behind A/ux, in the next year or two A/ux should be a nice product. --Bill
macbeth@artecon.UUCP (Beckwith) (03/30/88)
In article <20952@amdcad.AMD.COM> rpw3@amdcad.UUCP (Rob Warnock) writes: <In article <2706@tekigm2.TEK.COM> phils@tekigm2.UUCP (Philip E Staub) writes: <>Don't laugh. As I recall, either RCA or GE has a patent on the use of CRTs <>for display of alpahnumeric characters generated as a scanned dot matrix. < <This is TRUE! ...as we learned at Fortune Systems a few years ago. And by <the way, it's RCA, and the patent covers virtually any scanned dot matrix. <If you make video displays, eventually RCA comes a'knocking... And boy, that sure put the kibosh on creativity and development in the video display arena, didn't it? -- + David Macy-Beckwith Artecon, Inc. {sdcsvax,hplabs}!hp-sdd!artecon!macbeth + | The Company has enough on its plate || "I didn't come here to argue!" | + without supporting the crazed postings || "Yes, you did!" + | of its newsaholic minions. || "No, I didn't!" |
mke@hpsemc.HP.COM (Miles Kehoe) (03/30/88)
/ hpsemc:comp.sys.mac / pfeifer@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Mark C Pfeifer) / 10:26 am Mar 23, 1988 / Claris is the subsitiary of Apple that is in charge of the application software - they have just released new versions of MacPaint, MacDraw, MacWrite, etc. Mark ---------- I believe Claris is a separate company, initially funded by Apple but specifically a distinct operating corporation. Apple, it seems, felt third party applications vendors were feeling uncomfortable working closely with one part of a company which competed with them in their own markeet. ie, it's hard to really believe one part of Apple (say the developer's support side) could avoid passing some info on to another part of Apple (applictions). Suppose you had an idea for a brilliant application, *similar* to MacPaint but superior in some small area. Would you tell the support people what you were doing if they were going to probably be at lunch with the Macpaint product managers? Anyway, Claris is the spin-off to own all (formerly Apple) applications. If not the case now, I believe Apple wants nothing to do with Claris except that some of the first Claris employees were formerly Apple employees. Anyone from Apple or Claris care to jump in? Miles
breck@aimt.UUCP (Robert Breckinridge Beatie) (03/30/88)
In article <4328@b-tech.UUCP>, zeeff@b-tech.UUCP (Jon Zeeff) writes: > I think a solution to these "look and feel" suits is for products to be > shipped with a user selectable interface. The user could arrange the menus > and select the icons that he wants to use. If he happens to select something > that looks like someone else's interface, it's not the developers problem. OK, but then would the "meta-interface", i.e. the method of defining the "user interface", be copyrightable? Of course, this is getting kind of silly. By the way, isn't that just what HP did with New Wave? I had the impression from an article I recently read that HP has a user adjustable interface. The default interface doesn't resemble the Mac that closely, but Apple was able, by adjusting the interface, to produce a very mac-like environment. It sounds as if the HP people did quite a job. -- Breck Beatie {uunet,ames!coherent}!aimt!breck "Sloppy as hell Little Father. You've embarassed me no end."
las@apr.UUCP (Larry Shurr) (03/31/88)
In article <8643@eddie.MIT.EDU> zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) writes: >VisiOn, Generra, and Sun's window systems are all examples of user >interface technologies which are not derivative works and Apple has no >problem with them. Are you truly privy to Apple's policies regarding the legal positions it wishes to promulgate for it's own interest? Do you participate in the decision-making carried out by Apple's highest levels of management? If you don't, what other souces of information do you draw upon to make this statement? I concede that you may be right, but are you stating verifi- able facts or your own opinion. Excuse me, but the attitude you seem to convey is much like that of many others you criticize in this posting - i.e, "It's so because I say so! My opinions are better than other peoples facts!" That message, intentional or not, has pervaded this discussion. > And Apple's work is sufficiently different both in >look and in capability from Xerox's SmallTalk browser that, apart from >Apple's claim to "broad licences" from Xerox, there is no need for >legal struggles in that area. Except for Apple's timing, which seems >calculated to further increase the FUD factor surrounding OS/2, I see >no reason why Apple should not go after gratuitous copying when equal >and better alternatives are available. Despite your beliefs regarding Apple's right to litigate the "look and feel" issue on principle, you seem to be conceding that Apple might, in any case, still be carrying out a sort of "preemptive strike" against the (mythical?, alledged?) Presentation Manager for the purpose of impeding its (mythical?, alledged?) introduction to the marketplace. I have a lot of doubts about this whole "look and feel" issue and I don't support Apple's position in this matter, though I still haven't resolved it to my own satisfaction (I could be convinced to change my mind - but not by abuse, so send all flames to your lower orifice). I definitely don't like predatory, anti-competitive practices such as trying to litigate one's potential competitors into submission/out-of-business (although I'm not expecting Apple to do this either to HP or to Microsoft, instead I believe that we'll probably see a "mutually agreeable settlement" out of this - those most likely to be hurt by this are the small developers who have transferred ideas from Mac to non-Mac systems through their porting their products to new machines). regards, Larry -- "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." - Oscar Wilde, James Whistler or George Bernard Shaw depending on who you ask Name: Larry A. Shurr (cbosgd!osu-cis!apr!las or try {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbcp1!las) Disclaimer: The above is not necessarily the opinion of APR or any APR client.
tim@ism780c.UUCP (T.W."Tim" Smith, Knowledgian) (03/31/88)
In article <1302@uop.edu> miket@uop.edu (Mike Thompson) writes:
< perhaps give Apple the incentive to go after more look-alike
< windowing systems like those on Sun's, Amiga's, Atari's (to beat
< up GEM again!!!) and, of course, IBM's newer systems.
A point you all seem to be missing is that Microsoft's Windows *IS*
a Mac look-alike and that Sun's and Amiga's ( and MIT's, while we
are at it ) don't look like Mac windows. And the Mac interface
doesn't feel like the Xerox one.
I would expect that Apple has a good chance to win against Microsoft
but would loose against Amiga for the same reason that Atari lost
when they sued the makers of Meteors ( an Asteroids clone ) and
that Bally ( I think ) won when they sued the makers of K.C.
Munchken ( a Pac-Man clone ).
In the Asteroids vs. Meteors case, what it came down to was that
the concept of shooting rocks in space can not be coverered by
the Atari copyright. Asteroids is a minimal implementation of
that, and any implementatio of that basic ( unprotectable ) idea
was going to include Asteroids, so Atari was out of luck.
In K.C.Munchken vs Pac-Man, the concept that can't be protected
was going around a maze chasing monsters. But Pac-Man had a lot
of elaborations on that idea that K.C. Munchken also had. The
judge felt that there were too many points of similarity, so
Pac-Man won.
Looking at the various window systems in question here, I would
guess that the part you can't protect is the idea of windows,
icons, and mice. But there are a lot of elaboration on the
basic idea that the maker of a window system must make, e.g.,
how do you grow windows, where do you put menus, how do you
close windows, do they tile or overlap, are icons used to
represent files only or do they also represent devices,
do you have a cute little trash can to throw files in, how
do you move windows, how do scroll bars work, etc.
Looking at Amiga windows, Sun windows, Mac windows, and
Xerox windows, we see four different answers to most of
these questions. Looking at Microsoft windows, we see
an answer that we already saw: Mac windows.
If Apple wins this suit, I doubt it will be a major blow to
most manufactures of window based systems. It will mean that
Microsoft will have to go out and design a windowing system
of their own, just like Sun and Amiga and Apple already did.
On the other hand, the law makes about as much sense to me
as the stock market, so take everything I say with a huge
grain of salt...
--
Tim Smith tim@ism780c.isc.com
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the
kind of person I'm preaching to" -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbsdavidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (04/02/88)
What ever the merits of Apple's suit against Microsoft, I think the suit
against HP is really sleazy. Many places have published pictures of
Apple's "evidence" photos of the NewWave and Mac screens. I just found
out that these are esentially phoney.
One of the dealer papers published a picture of the real NewWave screen,
and it is completely unlike the Mac. HP *did* allow for some
customization, however, and someone at Apple spent a lot of time
(weeks?) to force it to look similar to a Mac so that they could sue.
Next they might write a dBase program which produces a screen which
looks like a Mac...
If Apple wins this one they will have effectively killed the idea of a
configurable interface, since the customer might configure it to look
like something else, but the manufacterer is the one who gets sued.
This whole thing looks *really* sleazy to me.
--
bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -metim@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Timothy L. Kay) (04/02/88)
> means Rob Warnock >> means Philip E Staub >>Don't laugh. As I recall, either RCA or GE has a patent on the use of CRTs >>for display of alpahnumeric characters generated as a scanned dot matrix. >This is TRUE! ...as we learned at Fortune Systems a few years ago. And by >the way, it's RCA, and the patent covers virtually any scanned dot matrix. >If you make video displays, eventually RCA comes a'knocking... Now we get to an interesting point. The manufacturer of the video display isn't violating the patent! You can use a video display for purposes other than the display of a "scanned dot matrix." Therefore, it seems to me that RCA doesn't have a case against video display manufacturers. (It is some what like the music industry trying to get a tariff on the sale of *all* blank audio cassettes because *some* of them are used to infringe on copyrights.) The real infringers are the companies that manufacture video display *cards*. But suppose a company like Hercules had left out text mode from their card. Then you would have something that can only be used for graphics. Until, of course, somebody writes a driver that allows the Hercules card to be used to display text. In this case, who has violated the patent? Some hacker in high school could have written the software and posted it to a network. If 1,000 people use it, is this hacker liable for damages with respect to 1,000 counts of patent infringement? In a similar vane, I don't see how software patents can be enforceable. As I understand it, the AT command set for Hayes-compatible modems is not copyrighted, but the use of +++ is patented. Suppose a company built a modem that allowed the user to download his own program to the on-board processor. If the modem manufacturer didn't have Hayes compatibility, but the user wrote and downloaded a program to implement Hayes compatibility, is he infringing on the +++ patent. If the same user distributed his program to the net, does the situation change? If the manufacturer gave the program away for free (perhaps with source code, perhaps without it), does the situation change? Tim
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (04/02/88)
In article <9584@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (T.W."Tim" Smith, Knowledgian) writes: >In article <1302@uop.edu> miket@uop.edu (Mike Thompson) writes: > >Looking at Amiga windows, Sun windows, Mac windows, and This weeks _Time_ magazine (April 4, 1988) has an article on this subject on page 60. Inset are photos of the mac screen and a windows screen. The windows screen makes more effective use of colour on it's borders, bars, titles and gadgets, while the mac window is very plain belieing its monochrome heritage. I would say the little scroll arrow things in the corners are *similar* but not identical. The little page icons though do look identical, but how many ways can you exactly express an 8 1/2 x 11 piece of paper with a notch turned down ? The other point I'd like to make about this is if you talk to noncomputer people about it, a lot of them say: "I thought one of the things you computer types wanted to do is make 'em all look the same so if you go to another computer you still know how to use it ?" (paraphrased) -- "Ever since the world ended... I don't go out as much" richard@gryphon.CTS.COM rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (04/03/88)
In article <9584@ism780c.UUCP>, tim@ism780c.UUCP (T.W."Tim" Smith, Knowledgian) writes: > A point you all seem to be missing is that Microsoft's Windows *IS* > a Mac look-alike and that Sun's and Amiga's ( and MIT's, while we > are at it ) don't look like Mac windows. And the Mac interface > doesn't feel like the Xerox one. [...rest of argument deleted...] You're mistaken here: MS-Windows *IS NOT* a Mac look-alike. Windows v. 1 (which was brain-dead) used tiled windows - a significant, if unweildy, difference. Windows V. 2 has a significant difference (enhancement) over Windows V. 1 (and the Mac) - the menu bars run across the TOP OF THE WINDOW, not the top of the screen. Only having one menu bar on the Mac makes true multi-tasking difficult. Windows V. 2 was MS's first shot at the OS/2 presentation manager, and was designed for multi-tasking from the start. When you run an application on Windows 386, it pops up a window with it's own menu bar and the desktop menu bar is still active. Wes Peters -- /\ - "Against Stupidity, - {backbones}! /\/\ . /\ - The Gods Themselves - utah-cs!utah-gr! / \/ \/\/ \ - Contend in Vain." - uplherc!sp7040! / U i n T e c h \ - Schiller - obie!wes
leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (04/03/88)
In article <872@artecon.UUCP> macbeth@artecon.UUCP (David Macy-Beckwith) writes: <In article <20952@amdcad.AMD.COM> rpw3@amdcad.UUCP (Rob Warnock) writes: <<In article <2706@tekigm2.TEK.COM> phils@tekigm2.UUCP (Philip E Staub) writes: <<>Don't laugh. As I recall, either RCA or GE has a patent on the use of CRTs <<>for display of alpahnumeric characters generated as a scanned dot matrix. << <<This is TRUE! ...as we learned at Fortune Systems a few years ago. And by <<the way, it's RCA, and the patent covers virtually any scanned dot matrix. <<If you make video displays, eventually RCA comes a'knocking... < <And boy, that sure put the kibosh on creativity and development in the video <display arena, didn't it? There is an essential difference. RCA is willing to license the patent and for a reasonable fee, at that. Apple is *not* willing to license at *any* (reasonable?) price. Remember, HP *tried* to get a license. (followups are directed to misc.legal and comp.misc as those are the only two groups this *realy* bleongs in.) -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] ...!tektronix!reed!qiclab!leonard "I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'. You know... I'd rather be a hacker."
jreece@td2cad.intel.com (John Reece ) (04/04/88)
In article <8643@eddie.MIT.EDU> zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) writes: >Balderdash to both these arguments. Apple's lawsuit is appealing to >me because it states that if you don't have the basic guts to try to >do Apple one better, then you deserve to be sued. Microsoft certainly >have the talent and the wherewithal to create a next-generation user >interface tool and not a "derivative work." Why don't they use it? >Apple's intellectual property rights would not then be violated and we >the users might be much better off. > >VisiOn, Generra, and Sun's window systems are all examples of user >interface technologies which are not derivative works and Apple has no >problem with them. And Apple's work is sufficiently different both in >look and in capability from Xerox's SmallTalk browser that, apart from >Apple's claim to "broad licences" from Xerox, there is no need for >legal struggles in that area. Except for Apple's timing, which seems >calculated to further increase the FUD factor surrounding OS/2, I see >no reason why Apple should not go after gratuitous copying when equal >and better alternatives are available. > >"Originality, it's not just a good idea, it's the law." > -- Joe Biden never said this > >-Zigurd The problem with Apple going after "derivative" interface technologies is that it derived so much of the look and feel of its user interface from more expensive engineering workstations developed by other companies, such as the Xerox Star. I've read numerous articles and books by major players at Apple which frankly admit this, and I find Apple's righteousness extremely hypocritical. As far as Apple using the suit to simply create FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) in the minds of IBM and HP developers, I should point out that this is one of the first look-and-feel lawsuits where the defendant has the resources to defend itself in a lengthy court battle. Most of the other cases have been big company vs. little company suits, such as Lotus vs. Paperback Software, or Apple vs. Digital Research, where the smaller company had to settle simply because it couldn't afford to fight. Finally, this discussion seems to be suffering from a lack of specifics. Does anyone out there have any specifics in a laundry-list format of what exactly Apple considers the unique and copyrightable features of its interface, and how Windows violates them? For that matter, how do these unique features compare with those of the Xerox Star? What license arrangements did Apple make with Xerox? What exactly was covered in the Apple-Microsoft license agreement in 1985? John Reece
merchant@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Peter Merchant) (04/04/88)
In article <9584@ism780c.UUCP>, T.W."Tim" Smith writes: > A point you all seem to be missing is that Microsoft's Windows *IS* > a Mac look-alike and that Sun's and Amiga's ( and MIT's, while we > are at it ) don't look like Mac windows. And the Mac interface > doesn't feel like the Xerox one. > > Looking at the various window systems in question here, I would > guess that the part you can't protect is the idea of windows, > icons, and mice. But there are a lot of elaboration on the > basic idea that the maker of a window system must make, e.g., > how do you grow windows, where do you put menus, how do you > close windows, do they tile or overlap, are icons used to > represent files only or do they also represent devices, > do you have a cute little trash can to throw files in, how > do you move windows, how do scroll bars work, etc. > > Looking at Amiga windows, Sun windows, Mac windows, and > Xerox windows, we see four different answers to most of > these questions. Looking at Microsoft windows, we see > an answer that we already saw: Mac windows. Hm. I've been playing with Windows 2.03 and Microsoft has come up with different ways to do things, usually involving the window control menu, which is a pop-up menu located where the close box is on a Macintosh. Thus, if I want to move a window, I can go to the window control menu and select "Move" and then the window outline will follow my mouse. However, since that is too much work, I can also just go to the title bar of the window and drag it around, just like a Macintosh. If I click on a menu, it comes down and I can select the item that I want by clicking on it, or I can hold down the mouse button and work it just like a Macintosh. If nothing else, the worse that would happen is that Microsoft remove some of these shortcuts... I don't think Apple is trying to shoot all windowing systems and claim that they are the only people allowed to do a windowing system. I think their aim, and it is legitimate in my eyes, is to keep people from pilfering the Macintosh window system and it's look-and-feel. Also, I was intrigued to read, in Infoworld, about IBM/Microsoft's specs for "panel displays" using The Presentation Manager. It reads just like a page out of Apple's User Interface Guidelines, except that ther phrases are all changed around, for example, dialog boxes are called panels. This strikes a bit close to home, I think. --- "Your moves are so raw..." Peter Merchant (merchant@eleazar.UUCP)
peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (04/05/88)
In article <8643@eddie.MIT.EDU>, zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) writes: > The two arguments I have seen in this newsgroup and in the press > against Apple's suit are 1) That Apple should allow the industry to > standardize around a Macintosh-like user interface, and 2) That user > interfaces are so alike that all usable, efficient user interfaces > look like the Macintosh user interface. The two arguments I have seen on the net and in the press in favor of Apple's suite are 1) That Apple has the sole right to determine what is or is not a copy of their Desktop, and 2) that Microsoft Windows is such a copy. > Balderdash to both these arguments. Apple's lawsuit is appealing to > me because it states that if you don't have the basic guts to try to > do Apple one better, then you deserve to be sued. Microsoft certainly > have the talent and the wherewithal to create a next-generation user > interface tool and not a "derivative work." Why don't they use it? Balderdash to both these arguments. Apple's lawsuit is appalling to me because it states that if you have the guts to try to do Apple one better, then Apple will still turn around and sue you. I'm amazed that Microsoft has done such a good job of implementing a windowing system: in many ways it is superior to Apple's, I never thought they had the talent and resources. > Apple's intellectual property rights would not then be violated and we > the users might be much better off. Apple's intellectual property rights have not been violated by Microsoft. I am willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt on HP's New Wave Office, since it looks like a copy of the Finder, but holding Microsoft responsible makes no more sense than suing Ford because the guy who rear-ended you was driving a Taurus. > Except for Apple's timing, which seems > calculated to further increase the FUD factor surrounding OS/2, I see > no reason why Apple should not go after gratuitous copying when equal > and better alternatives are available. The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe. I find Microsoft Windows to be a pretty amazing product. I never would have believed an 8088 could support an application like that. Even more amazing, it's a well-behaved application. You can actually run Microsoft Windows in a partition under DoubleDos! Much as I dislike Microsoft, I have to give them credit where credit is due. -- -- a clone of Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva `-_-' -- normally ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter U -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (Lee Dickey) (04/05/88)
This is an appeal to move this discussion out of six different news groups and into one. I suggest "misc.legal". The discussion has moved to a level that it has nothing *explicitly* to do with amiga, atari, ibm, mac, arch, etc. But it does have something to do with "legal" issues. Please. -- L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo. ljdickey@waterloo.edu ljdickey@WATDCS.UWaterloo.ca ljdickey@water.BITNET ljdickey@water.UUCP or ...!uunet!water!ljdickey
ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) (04/08/88)
In article <112@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: >unweildy, difference. Windows V. 2 has a significant difference >(enhancement) over Windows V. 1 (and the Mac) - the menu bars run >across the TOP OF THE WINDOW, not the top of the screen. Only having >one menu bar on the Mac makes true multi-tasking difficult. The Amiga only has one menu bar along the top of the screen, and I never have any problems multi-tasking because of it. In fact, what happens if your menu is larger than your window? -- ------------ Eric Kennedy ejkst@cisunx.UUCP
tim@ism780c.UUCP (T.W."Tim" Smith, Knowledgian) (04/08/88)
In article <112@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes:
< You're mistaken here: MS-Windows *IS NOT* a Mac look-alike. Windows
< v. 1 (which was brain-dead) used tiled windows - a significant, if
< unweildy, difference. Windows V. 2 has a significant difference
< (enhancement) over Windows V. 1 (and the Mac) - the menu bars run
I haven't seen V.2. The thing I noticed about V.1 the few times I
have used it was that I knew how to do everything I wanted to do,
or could figure it out easily, by applying what I knew from using
the Mac. With Sun windows or Amiga windows, it took me much longer
to figure out how to do things. This is what I mean by look-alike.
Perhaps a more accurate term woulb be "feel-alike".
Is tiled vs. non-tiled significant? I don't know. I suppose that it
is one of the things that will be decided by this lawsuit.
--
Tim Smith tim@ism780c.isc.com
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the
kind of person I'm preaching to" -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbschasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) (04/08/88)
In article <2477@saturn.ucsc.edu>, lupin3@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (-=/ Larry Hastings /=-) writes: > Which brings me to the reason why I am posting... Forgive me, but I have had > my head buried in the sand as of recent, and have heard of this "New Wave" > product only in messages concerning this lawsuit. What is "New Wave", what > does it do, why is it worth suing over? One person said something about > "having two applications using different parts of the same data at the same > time", which is intriguing but not very descriptive. Is "New Wave" out yet? Will be . . . . soon . . . . . > . . . In _your_ > opinion, is Apple justified in its lawsuit? Not based on your love of the Mac, > or your love of the PC (does ANYONE _really_ love the PC?); but based on your > somewhat solidly formed, and INformed, opinion on the products themselves. The lawsuit is trash -- the contract they signed with Microsoft gave away whatever they may have had then: it explicitly allows Microsoft to improve Windows, and sell rights to H-P, and . . . And the filing struck me as so vague and non-specific, I think Apple is going to slow down MS/IBM/HP as much as possible, but a win in court would surprise the Apple legal department as much as it would me! Maybe this is Apple's way to kill "look-and-feel" forever: get a good solid precedent (even if you have to be the loser ({:). If so, thank God for Apple, if not, lets keep the lawyers busy for another two years or so and add $50 to the cost of evey package we buy! (How many lawyers are there in Japan, or even Holland?) Charles Marslett ============================================================================== STB Systems, Inc. (not very officially)
wolf@csclea.ncsu.edu (Thomas Wolf) (04/08/88)
In article <8455@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: > >The Amiga only has one menu bar along the top of the screen, and I never >have any problems multi-tasking because of it. In fact, what happens if >your menu is larger than your window? The logical thing to happen if the menu-bar is larger than the window is that it gets clipped. I imagine that in this case, you can use sliders to see the rest of it. Also, just because you don't seem to have any problems doesn't invalidate the original remark. An example in which the above might be true: Say you have one application that uses 4 or 5 different menu-bar headers that are specific to its application. And another has also 4-5 different menu-bar headers that are particular to the application. And for good measure, lets throw in a couple of system-specific menu-bar headers (such as desk-acce- sories, etc.). If you have a single menu-bar, you either have to crunch them all on the same line OR keep switching menu-bars whenever the top window changes (when another application becomes active). I for one, think a menu-bar per application-window is a great idea. But, of course, that's just my humble opinion. They may or may not be rational. Tom Wolf Tom Wolf ARPA (I think): tw@cscosl.ncsu.edu or wolf@csclea.ncsu.edu
chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) (04/18/88)
In article <8455@cisunx.UUCP>, ejkst@cisunx.UUCP writes: > The Amiga only has one menu bar along the top of the screen, and I never > have any problems multi-tasking because of it. In fact, what happens if > your menu is larger than your window? > Eric Kennedy > ejkst@cisunx.UUCP Actually, what happens if the menu is larger than the screen: you'd better have a way of wraping or compressing it (as in human factor engineering) -- the real problem with mixing the menus up is what menu item goes with what window? Nothing is really impractical, just which is easier to use or more obvious. Charles Marslett chasm@killer.UUCP
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (04/20/88)
<< How does one keep things straight, since the amiga has only one menu bar at the top of the screen, rather than popping up a menu from the top of the active window, as is the case in Windows 2.03? >> Two ways: 1. The active window's title bar is highlighted. That way, one knows which window from whence the menus cometh. That sounds like a kludgey answer, but it is more intuitive than it sounds. It would be obvious what I meant, if I could show you. Alas, the netnews doesn't support pictures. With windows 2.03, the menus sometimes pop up above the menu bar or below depending where on the screen the window happens to be; this is sort of distracting (at least distracting to me). I'd rather just always click at the top of the screen. Trust me, it isn't really confusing. 2. The amiga supports a concept which is apparently unique to the Amiga. At least I personally haven't seen it elsewhere. Could well be, though as I haven't seen every window based system in existance. The Amiga uses a concept called screens. Screens can be rolled up and down like the windows on a car go up and down. Windows are rendered onto the screens. Each screen has its own menu strip at the top of the screen, and the menu strip always travels with the screen. Something complex like a desktop publishing system can open a screen and render its windows onto that screen, thus preventing confusion with other stuff that is just running the O/S or whatever. I like it; it is sort of like having your cake and eating it too. If you haven't seen the Amiga, its worth a trip in to see the Amiga 2000. I have used the Macintosh, the Amiga and Windows. I like the Amiga concept the best of the three ways. The amiga hardware is really just now getting to the point where it is honestly capable of delivering the performance comensurate with the needs of the O/S. --Bill
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (04/25/88)
In article <1120@neoucom.UUCP>, wtm@neoucom.UUCP writes: > screen the window happens to be; this is sort of distracting (at > least distracting to me). I'd rather just always click at the top > of the screen. Trust me, it isn't really confusing. I like the Amiga as much as the next guy, but I think putting the menus at the top of the screen like the Mac's is the biggest single design flaw in the generally pretty good Intuition interface. When you have a seperate button for the menu there's no reason to tie the menu to any particular part of the screen. It should come up directly under the mouse pointer, the way it does in most, if not all, of the UNIX based workstations. > 2. The amiga supports a concept which is apparently unique to the > Amiga. At least I personally haven't seen it elsewhere. Could > well be, though as I haven't seen every window based system in > existance. The Amiga uses a concept called screens. Screens can > be rolled up and down like the windows on a car go up and down. > Windows are rendered onto the screens... You don't mention the particular advantage to screens, which is that it provides a method of supporting multiple palletes for different programs. Each "screen" is a seperate bitmap, rendered into the CRT display by the graphics coprocessor on a scan-line by scan-line basis. This way you can have a 2 bit-plane Workbench screen and a 6 bit-plane painting screen available at once. Screens aren't quite as flexible as windows (for example, they can only be moved vertically), but they're still quite handy. The Mac uses a "pallete manager" to deal with this problem, and to allow for the use of multiple programs with different depth and palette requirements. The main problem with this is (1) It's expensive in terms of CPU power: if any window requires 8 bitplanes, all windows have to have 8 bit planes. The desktop slows down quite a bit when it has to move so many bits around. (2) Programs interfere with each other. They do a pretty good job of keeping programs out of each other's hair, but it's not really possible, particularly if you load up something like Pixel Paint. > best of the three ways. The amiga hardware is really just now > getting to the point where it is honestly capable of delivering the > performance comensurate with the needs of the O/S. Why do you say this? The Amiga windowing has always been lightning fast, compared with everyone else's, thanks to a dedicated DMA Blitter. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.