gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (03/22/88)
Clearly there is some kind of copyright on a user interface and you
should not be allowed to completely clone an interface (so I could
walk up to a PC an operate it using my knowledge of the Macintosh).
This is especially true because professional graphic artists are used
by today's workstation vendors to make their graphics aesthetically
pleasing.
HOWEVER, most industries thrive on reverse-engineering and technology
copying. Why do you think DRAMs are so cheap? Because whoever gets a
4Mb part to work will have a 6-month head start before the other
companies can copy the ideas, if not the lithography itself. If NEC
can clone an 8088 with impunity, why can't Microsoft Clone a Mac
interface? The answer is that they can.
As was said earlier, MANY ideas of the macintosh cannot be protected
because they don't come from Apple. In fact, you could say that
Apple's innovations were mainly related to 1-button mouses, and the
look of scrollbars and fonts. That would just about summarize
everything.
I for one believe someone will call Apple's bluff in the next few
years and Apple will lose big in court. Then it will be open-season
on the macintosh interface. And rightly so. Apple should not be
applauded so much for its innovation, as it should be applauded for
bringing high-end technology to a low-end machine. This is the main
innovation in the macintosh.
Don Gillies {ihnp4!uiucdcs!gillies} U of Illinois
{gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu}macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) (03/23/88)
I certainly am no lawyer, but it seems to me that the folks criticizing the Apple lawsuit are generalizing things too much. I doubt that the law in cases like this is so non-specific. If you read the text of the suit that was posted in an earlier article, Apple is not suing Microsoft for an earlier version of windows, nor for a square window, nor for using a mouse. The suit notes several patents that Apple feels are being infringed upon by the latest version of Windows. The suit refers to earlier agreements, but claims the bounds of those agreements regarding Windows have beeen overstepped. If we are going to be at all constructive in criticizing and discussing this lawsuit, it seems to me we ought to be a bit more careful about letting our emotions cloud the issue. Read the lawsuit carefully and many of you will see how far off-base your messages have been. Jim -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Jim --> macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) {Standard disclaimer, nothin' fancy!} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) (03/24/88)
In article <532@lakesys.UUCP> macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) writes: > I certainly am no lawyer, but it seems to me that the folks > criticizing the Apple lawsuit are generalizing things too much. I > doubt that the law in cases like this is so non-specific. The above is a very general statement by itself. In fact, there are few precedents, and some of them are contradictory. > The suit notes several patents that Apple > feels are being infringed upon by the latest version of Windows. The suit > refers to earlier agreements, but claims the bounds of those agreements > regarding Windows have beeen overstepped. Wrong. The suit lists no patents. Rather, it lists the registration numbers of a handful of copyrights. It says nothing about the way in which Apple claims Microsoft and/or HP are supposedly infringing upon them. > If we are going to be at all constructive in criticizing and > discussing this lawsuit, it seems to me we ought to be a bit more > careful about letting our emotions cloud the issue. Read the > lawsuit carefully and many of you will see how far off-base your > messages have been. With all due respect, your fundamental errors above suggest that perhaps you should take your own advice. <rogue>
sfb@ut-emx.UUCP (Steve Bellenot) (03/24/88)
In article <76000164@uiucdcsp>, gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > I for one believe someone will call Apple's bluff in the next few ^^^^^^^^^^^ > years and Apple will lose big in court. Then it will be open-season ^^^^^^^ As Apple says "we have it now" -- delays for big blue, HP and Microsoft could be worth millions. :-) each product has its window of sellability :-) -- Steve Bellenot sfb@emx.utexas.edu if that returns try sfb%emx@sally.utexas.edu This isn't a very good disclaimer.
rusty@hodge.UUCP (Rusty Hodge) (03/25/88)
Blame the Patent Office. They granted Apple patents on several key parts of the user interface. So legally, Apple can force people to license the interface parts covered by the patents. I don't know if you've ever looked at the patents for the Telebit Trailblazer modems, but they are worded in such a way that they could almost be applied to *any* modem. They *do* have a patent on using multiple carrier frequencies. They also have a couple of patents on techniques used in virtually all current modems. In our law, it doesn't matter who did it first, but who got the patents first. -- Rusty Hodge, Hodge Computer Research Corp, Orange, CA 92667 (714) 974-6300 rusty@hodge.cts.com [ccicpg!arnold, crash]!hodge!rusty FAX (714) 921-8038 uucp: (714) 921-1090 (login: nuucp) Dial-A-Joke (714) 966-0976
gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (03/25/88)
No, Xerox did not invent the mouse. But Xerox research proved that the mouse was superior to a variety of other pointing devices (such as trackballs, joysticks, screen cursors, and a peculiar device you held between your knees to operate!) In the early seventies, one Xerox researcher (name escapes me) set out to prove the mouse was a piece of junk. He was convinced that other means of input were far superior to a mouse. So he began grabbing people off the street in Palo Alto, and had them learn to edit using a variety of pointing devices. Suprisingly, people who used the mouse learned faster in almost all cases. And at the end of the test, people preferred the mouse over the other forms of input. He proved himself wrong!
greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman) (03/31/88)
In article <146@hodge.UUCP> rusty@hodge.UUCP (Rusty Hodge) writes: > >Blame the Patent Office. They granted Apple patents on several key >parts of the user interface. So legally, Apple can force people to >license the interface parts covered by the patents. I'm not so sure that Apple has ANY patents on their user interface. Software alone is EXTREMELY difficult to patent; what Apple did is copyright the "Audio-visual work" which is their screen display; this prohibits unauthorized copying (no one else can produce a display like that without Apple's consent.) That doesn't prohibit anyone from having an interface that WORKS like Apple's, so long as it doesn't LOOK like Apple's. > >I don't know if you've ever looked at the patents for the Telebit >Trailblazer modems, but they are worded in such a way that they could >almost be applied to *any* modem. They *do* have a patent on using >multiple carrier frequencies. They also have a couple of patents on >techniques used in virtually all current modems. > >In our law, it doesn't matter who did it first, but who got the >patents first. > But a key part of patent law is "prior art". If a patent like that is ever challenged in court, say because the patent holder trys to enforce it, the defendant can show that the method was not original to the patent holder, and the patent can be invalidated. Patents can be invalidated for other reasons, too, such as the invention being "obvious" -- i.e. ANYONE could have thought of it, if they had the need. You can't patent simply anything you want; it must be worthy of the law's protection. Otherwise things would get out of hand with everyone trying to make a quick buck by patenting anything and everything, in order to charge other people for the privledge of using it. Patent law exists to protect ORIGINAL, NON-OBVIOUS, and USEFUL devices, methods and processes. The Patent Office examines a patent when it is filed, to insure that it conforms to these requirements. Sometimes, they make mistakes; the patent can be challenged and the question is decided in court. Copyright exists to protect works of authorship, such as books, music, software, and visual arts including video displays. When someone, such as a composer, believes that someone has infringed on his copyright, he takes them to court. For music, the courts have set up some pretty clear guidelines on what constitutes an infringement. If an average person (they don't have to be any sort of musical expert, or have any special qualifications) can detect a substantial similarity, and there is a reasonable chance that the alleged infringing author had prior exposure to the other work, then the work will be considered infringing. A recent example of this was the John Lennon tune "My Sweet Lord", which was found to infringe on the copyright of the song, "He's So Fine". It doesn't matter that there is or isn't INTENT to copy. The court determined that there was a reasonable chance that Lennon had had exposure to the tune, and the jury could hear a substantial similarity in the music. On the other hand, if two composers who could not have had exposure to the other's work produce similar tunes, they would not be found infringing, because they were produced independently. If similary criteria are applied in this case, then a substantial similarity in appearance to the copyrighted Apple screens could result in a determination of infringement. There can be no question of prior exposure, because one of the defendants had a limited license to the Apple technology. It's a matter of what criteria the court uses to determine substantial similarity. Please note: The above is in no way to be construed as legal advice. These are my opinions. If you want legal advice, you should consult a lawyer. I am just a programmer who has an interest in protecting his work. Greg Wageman Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: ...!decwrl!spar!snjsn1!blfca1!greg 1601 Technology Drive ARPA: greg@blfca1.com@spar.slb.com San Jose, CA 95110 BIX: gwage (408) 437-5198 CIS: 74016,352 "Nest deeply, and carry a big stack." ------------------ The opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author.
gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (03/31/88)
Apple may win in court, but I'd rather seem the company take the
money the spent on legal fees, and use it to pay psychologists,
researchers, and engineers, to come up with an even better user
interface. It seems like a much more constructive thing to do.
Don Gillies {ihnp4!uiucdcs!gillies} U of Illinois
{gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu}