ted@imsvax.UUCP (01/25/87)
America is becoming a lawless land, both in the streets and
in the boardrooms and courtrooms. Our legal systems were never
designed to handle the sheer volumn of bullshit which they are
having to deal with now and are simply no longer working. On the
streets, it has reached the point at which, in order to actually
get put in prison, one must be a mother-raper AND a father
stabber and then be on a waiting list for six or seven years, the
decision the judge has to make being:
"Is this dude bad enough for me to want to throw someone I
KNOW is bad OUT of prison in order to make room for HIM?"
rather than simply:
"Is this dude bad enough for me to want to throw him in
prison?"
as it used to be.
On the other side of the tracks, we are seeing companies
which obviously and pitifully lack the brains or talent to make
it in the open market trying to make their living in the
courtroom, and the worst offender is Apple Corp., the erstwhile
hippie commune which supposedly had made it to the big-time.
Those people obviously see the law as a tool for the rich,
whereby, like the trolls of legend which infested bridges, they
can earn their living by laying claim to such things as
techniques for walking and breathing, driving automobiles,
programming visual effects similar to those of the Xerox 8010
Star ( which Xerox, an honest company, has never fought over the
"look and feel" of) etc., and charging the general public, or at
least all such as use small computers, thereby.
It is easy to see how Apple has come to such a pass. When
IBM went the wrong way (with Intel rather than Motorola
microchips), Apple was the one company in a position to challenge
them by actually doing something with the 68000. What they did
was to produce two machines which were so pitiful that they
convinced much of the world that the 68000 itself was a bad idea:
a $10,000 machine which looked like a 1946 TV set with a 5"
screen (Lisa) and a $3000 machine which resembles a toaster
(Mac). Both of those machines are totally closed
architecturally, both are black and white only, both use up most
of the 68000's compute power dealing with screen graphics, both
have toy rather than real keyboards, both come with one (slow)
floppy disk, neither has any capabilities for expansion vis-a-vis
color monitors, fpu's etc. Were it not for the 8010 Star
interface, which Apple flagrantly pirated from Xerox Parc, the
Mac probably could not be sold even to the most primitive and
backwards peoples on earth.
I personally am bothered by the DRI affair, which I regard
as totally lawless behavior on Apple's part, as well as by
articles I have been reading in Info-World lately. Apple is now
claiming rights to any enhancements to the basic "look and feel"
of the Mac interface created by third party software developers
as well as launching new campaigns to prevent the "look and feel"
of the mac being ported to other architectures. I am
particularly bothered by the idea that any money which I might
spend on software might end up in the coffers of these
desperados. I intend, therefore, to avoid purchasing software
for which any kind of tribute has been paid to Apple by the
developers or marketers.
I would appreciate it if someone could compile and publish a
list of software for which any form of compensation has been paid
to Apple. The latest report I've seen is that something like 150
companies are involved in developing 8010 Star-like software and
it figures to be a little bit hard to keep track of.
Ted Holden,
IMSwetter@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (01/26/87)
ha! ha! ha! You were kidding, right? I mean no one would be stupid enough to violently flame apple without knowing the facts, right? Like the fact that Xerox at one time owned a large portion of apple stock and was thinking of buying more? Like the fact that some of the people who developed the original Lisa interface at one time worked on the Xerox Parc project? No one would be that much of a blazing idiot, right? Mellowout. Pierce Wetter P.S. If you are so hung up about finding someone to be angry with why don't you yell at addison wesley. They're charging $600 a copy for the mac version of TeX, a public domain program. No site lisencing either. Smooth guys real smooth. To be fair, it isn't really AW's fault they're only distributing it, it the programs authors who put on the limitations. Manual, n.: A unit of documentation. There are always three or more on a given item. One is on the shelf; someone has the others. The information you need in in the others. -- Ray Simard -------------------------------------------- wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu --------------------------------------------
sarrel@osu-eddie.UUCP (01/27/87)
Boy, are you gonna get it. Batten down the hatches, stow the sails and be prepared to be bent, folded, spindled and mutilated! (please forgive the use of the IBM (ugh!) terminology). First, I would agree with you on the general state of out legal system, but that is not the point here. I do not think (as you seem to) that the only measure of a computer's power (read usefulness) is its ability to crunch numbers. Therefore, I do not think it is a waste of cycles for the Mac to do its graphic interface. In fact, I think it's one of the best uses to which a computer's time has ever been put. There will soon be (already is) a way to add the 68881 (is that c`the correct number) fp processor. TML Pascal is going to support it in thier next version. If you really want to crunch numbers, don't make any changes to the screen! It takes up very little time to display the watch cursor while the machine crunches. The Mac is not perfect. However, most of these imperfections are due to the fact that people are using the Mac in ways for which it was not origionally designed or which Apple did not anticipate. But it is good that people are using it in those ways, it forces Apple to enhance the Mac. I could go on. But, I'm afraid I've already said too much. I am a firm believer in the proverb: "Never argue with a fool, others may not be able to tell the difference." Give me a Mac, or give me death (IBM PC)! -- Marc Sarrel CIS Gradual Student 611 Harley Dr. #1 The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43202 ..!osu-eddie!sarrel or sarrel@osu-eddie.uucp
dennis@uw-warp.UUCP (01/29/87)
In article <1600@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu (Pierce T. Wetter) writes: > ha! ha! ha! ... > P.S. If you are so hung up about finding someone to be angry with why > don't you yell at addison wesley. They're charging $600 a copy for the > mac version of TeX, a public domain program. No site lisencing either. > Smooth guys real smooth. To be fair, it isn't really AW's fault they're > only distributing it, it the programs authors who put on the limitations. I don't think TeX is public domain. And I don't think there are multiple authors, at least not for the single program "TeX," which was written by Donald E. Knuth. Even TeX were public domain, the part of TeX that Addison-Wesley is charging for is NOT the public domain part. In fact, as far as I can tell, the TeX source code (tex.web) is copyrighted by Donald E. Knuth, and has some rather explicit but very reasonable limitations on who may copy it. The part that AW is (reasonably or not) charging for is the task of porting TeX to the Mac, and for distributing it (which does cost something, but nothing like $600). In any case, you are free to not pay AW $600, and do your own port to the Mac. I will even send you a copy of TEX.WEB and other TEX sources if you will cover my costs of doing so (say, $30 for a 9-track tape). TeX is not an easy program to cram onto a micro. By the way, I believe AW does offer site licensing for the PC, since the University of Washington has a PC TeX site license. Dennis. -- uucp: {decvax|ihnp4|...}uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp!dennis arpa: uw-nsr!uw-warp!dennis@beaver.cs.washington.edu
cpc@vaxine.UUCP (01/29/87)
> ha! ha! ha! > You were kidding, right? I mean no one would be stupid enough to violently > flame apple without knowing the facts, right? Like the fact that Xerox at > one time owned a large portion of apple stock and was thinking of buying more? > Like the fact that some of the people who developed the original Lisa > interface at one time worked on the Xerox Parc project? Who cares about who used to own whom, or who worked for whom? Employees give up all their patent/copyright rights to their employees anyway. The (valid) point is that apple is trying to own something that wasn't their idea, and to own enhancements of that thing they didn't create. That's just not right, and I believe the patent law also says that enhancements are not automatically the right of the original owner. The problem is that apple can bludgeon smaller companies into submission just to avoid the legal costs. You don't have to have a legal leg to stand on to sue somebody. So take your own advice: > Mellowout. > P.S. If you are so hung up about finding someone to be angry with why > don't you yell at addison wesley. They're charging $600 a copy for the So add them to the list. How does that let apple off the hook? Let's really solve the problem: take every third lawyer out against a wall and shoot him/her. :-) -- -- Chris Cullen UUCP: {ucbvax!allegra,decvax}!encore!vaxine!cpc Automatix, Inc. Phone: 617-667-7900 x2066 1000 Technology Park Dr. Billerica, Mass. 01821
wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (01/31/87)
In article <653@uw-warp.UUCP> dennis@uw-warp.UUCP (Dennis Gentry) writes: >In article <1600@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu (Pierce T. Wetter) writes: >... >> P.S. If you are so hung up about finding someone to be angry with why >> don't you yell at addison wesley. They're charging $600 a copy for the >> mac version of TeX, a public domain program. No site lisencing either. >> Smooth guys real smooth. To be fair, it isn't really AW's fault they're >> only distributing it, it the programs authors who put on the limitations. > >I don't think TeX is public domain. And I don't think there are >multiple authors, at least not for the single program "TeX," which was >written by Donald E. Knuth. Even TeX were public domain, the part of >TeX that Addison-Wesley is charging for is NOT the public domain part. What I really mean is that TeX is not a program they have to pay a license fee, _and_ port. Additionally when I say authors I mean the authors of TeXtures which is a combonation TeX Preview, and TeX formatter. > >In any case, you are free to not pay AW $600, and do your own port >to the Mac. I will even send you a copy of TEX.WEB and other TEX >sources if you will cover my costs of doing so (say, $30 for a 9-track >tape). TeX is not an easy program to cram onto a micro. By the way, >I believe AW does offer site licensing for the PC, since the University >of Washington has a PC TeX site license. I'm not the person paying $600 Caltech is. We have $5000 to spend on software but the administration had a policy of providing TeX on all of its computers. This means the high cost of TeX is pushing out other software. Arrgh. AW does have site licensing for MicroTeX on the PC but not for the Mac version. ARRGH. Now you understand my point of view. (By the way no thanks on the port, I have to do at caltech just as far as classes go.) Pierce Wetter. have enought VIRGO (Aug 23 - Sept 22) You are the logical type and hate disorder. This nitpicking is sickening to your friends. You are cold and unemotional and sometimes fall asleep while making love. Virgos make good bus drivers. -------------------------------------------- wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu --------------------------------------------
yvo@ut-sally.UUCP (02/01/87)
>>> don't you yell at addison wesley. They're charging $600 a copy for the >>> mac version of TeX, a public domain program. No site lisencing either. >This means the high cost of TeX is pushing out other software. Arrgh. AW does >have site licensing for MicroTeX on the PC but not for the Mac version. ARRGH. Well, I don't know where you all get your info, but I happen to know that Addison-Wesley is working on getting the University of Texas to buy a site license for Textures. I got that info from a representative of Addison-Wesley who is actively pursuing this.
straka@ihlpf.UUCP (02/02/87)
> > Mellowout. > > Let's really solve the problem: take every third lawyer out against a wall > and shoot him/her. :-) > Let's really solve the problem: take every third lawyer out against a wall ^H^H^H^H^H other! Sorry, I couldn't help it! -- Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka
socha@drivax.UUCP (02/02/87)
> Let's really solve the problem: take every third lawyer out against a wall > and shoot him/her. :-) Or simply, make it economically disadvantageous for people to become lawyers while at the same time do the opposite for them becoming Engineers. ------- "Lawyers exist to divide the pie, Engineers to make it bigger!" Approximate Engineer/Lawyer ratios: USA 1:400 & Japan 400:1 Explains a LOT! ------- -- UUCP:...!amdahl!drivax!socha WAT Iron'75 "Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler." A. Einstein
rupp@cod.UUCP (02/02/87)
--------- There are various ways to look at the Apple/Gem affair. Yes, Xerox did originate (I guess) the windowing user interface. Yes, Apple then took the idea and did something with it. And yes, Apple did threaten the creators of GEM (my mind blanks at the moment, can't remember the name, SRI maybe?). I do not like the idea of copyrighting the 'look and feel' of something, but this whole area of what can and cannot be copyrighted in software is a new and tricky branch of law. It might be well to remember that although Xerox had it first, Apple was the company that made the windowing user interface an important part of microcomputing. That is a not-inconsiderable contribution. No company, or person, for that matter, is perfect. Apple Computer has it faults, but also its positive accomplishments. Let's try to keep some perspective.
herbw@midas.UUCP (02/03/87)
--------
As I recall, the "Apple/GEM affair" related to an Apple Patent (Number 4,464,652,
issued August 7, 1984), which DRI was infringing by using a one button mouse and
pull down menues. DRI agreed to change the interface so that it no longer
infringed on this patent. Note that XEROX used a three button mouse and
pop up menues, so the claims of the Apple patent were *not* based on work done
by XEROX. Having read this patent, I *personally* believe that Apple's actions
were reasonable in *this* case. I *personally* believe that the recent "Look
and Feel" Copyright decisions are *not* realistic. Copyrights and Patents
do (and should) offer different forms of protection for intellectual property.
-- Herb Weiner (...tektronix!midas!herbw)holloway@drivax.UUCP (Bruce Holloway) (02/04/87)
In article <481@cod.UUCP> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes:
< And yes, Apple did threaten
<the creators of GEM (my mind blanks at the moment, can't remember
<the name, SRI maybe?).
Yes, it was we here at SRI, and we were quite upset about it, especially
since DRI was getting all the credit.
--
....!ucbvax!hplabs!amdahl!drivax!holloway
My balogna has a first name, it's Jimbob. My balogna has a second name, it's
Boltwangle. But it prefers to be called Jim.zhahai@gaia.UUCP (02/05/87)
In article <481@cod.UUCP> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: >There are various ways to look at the Apple/Gem affair. Yes, Xerox >did originate (I guess) the windowing user interface. Yes, Apple then >took the idea and did something with it. And yes, Apple did threaten >the creators of GEM (my mind blanks at the moment, can't remember >the name, SRI maybe?). I do not like the idea of copyrighting the 'look >and feel' of something, but this whole area of what can and cannot be >copyrighted in software is a new and tricky branch of law. Actually, Xerox was a major but not the only innovator in the area of bit mapped, windowing user interfaces. Stanford Research Institute (SRI) was another, perhaps even earlier. Seems to me I recall that some of the lisp folks were doing impressive things with that paradigm too, before Apple came out with the Lisa. (I was working on such a product too, pre-Lisa but post Alto. Never really came out in quantity :-). GEM was a post Mac product by Digital Research Inc (DRI) of CP/M fame. There are many ways of setting up a windowing interface; Xerox alone had several. Apple came up with one scheme for the Lisa and then Mac. It was conceptually a derivative of the earlier work (particularly Xerox), but it was their own formulation and set of tradeoffs. Not a bad one, though the "best" paradigm is a matter of religion. They deserve credit for their exact formulation (and blame). The general ideas were not theirs first, however. Apple also deserves credit for cheapening the entry price, especially with the Mac, which was by far the cheapest system with that style of interface. >It might be well to remember that although Xerox had it first, Apple >was the company that made the windowing user interface an important >part of microcomputing. That is a not-inconsiderable contribution. No >company, or person, for that matter, is perfect. Apple Computer has it >faults, but also its positive accomplishments. Let's try to keep some >perspective. The major way they deserve reward for this is through people buying their product because it is inherently decent (in the purchasers mind), or because of the lead in software designed for it. To the degree that they need to lock out competitors with better or cheaper products, they probably hurt us all; this may be justified for their innovations, but is damaging to the degree that they attempt to appropriate concepts they did not create, or which are natural or obvious. I am not sure yet just how broad their claim really is; probably as broad as their legal budget allows, which may be braoder than their actual creativity warrants. Look and feel copyrights are going to mess up the industry a good deal, I suspect. Sad. We shall see. ~z~ -- Zhahai Stewart {hao | nbires}!gaia!zhahai
neves@uwai.UUCP (02/05/87)
A couple of words about "look and feel" copyright. Apple is not claiming that any window system is going to infringe on their creation. Instead they do not want some other company copy the exact MacIntosh interface that Apple spent big bucks developing. This is just what any company would do with a product that is copied too closely -- whether it be doll clones, or software clones. Window systems are still in their infancy. There are lots of alternatives, so there is no need to copy everything from someone else. Maybe if the courts prevent copying some of these companies will come up with better interface ideas. Another part of the problem is that the clone maker is trying to fool the public that their product works exactly the same as the original. A company should have the ability to protect itself and the public from this. One method is to call the product/company with a similar name (how many phone related companies have 3 letters and end in "TT" -- ATT, QTT, ITT). This is why Apple protects Apple, Mac, etc. and names that might be confused with those names (such as related fruits, or sound alike names). You might think that it is silly to expect that people could confuse PINECONE and APPLE. They might not, but they would view PINECONE in a better light because of the name similarity to APPLE (I am sure there have been Psych experiments showing this). Conclusion: Quit the flaming at Apple for trying to prevent copying of its product. No company has to spent millions on something and then give it away. If you own a billion dollar company and think that Apple is doing something wrong then I would be interested in hearing more details. ---------------------------------------------------------------- There is no need to respond to this as this topic has already gotten pretty boring. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In article <279@gaia.UUCP> zhahai@gaia.UUCP (Zhahai Stewart) writes: >The major way they deserve reward for this is through people buying their >product because it is inherently decent (in the purchasers mind), or because >of the lead in software designed for it. To the degree that they need to >lock out competitors with better or cheaper products, they probably hurt us >all; this may be justified for their innovations, but is damaging to the >degree that they attempt to appropriate concepts they did not create, or >which are natural or obvious. ... > >Look and feel copyrights are going to mess up the industry a good deal, >I suspect. Sad. We shall see. ~z~ I don't agree with this. IBM has seen rampant copying of its PC product. It has meant lower prices now because of all the clones. It has also meant that the originator of the machine (IBM) is losing market share and will have to abandon the standard to regain it. The people who are going to get messed up are those who will be abandoned. A product introduction lead time of several months is not enough to guarantee profit. There are many leaks in industry and it just doesn't take that long to crank out a hardware or software clone of something. Those PC-AT clones came out very quickly after the IBM introduction of the machine. -- David Neves, Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison Usenet: {allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!neves Arpanet: neves@rsch.wisc.edu
gervers@utcs.UUCP (02/07/87)
Apples stinks, II sucks, IIc sucks, IIe sucks, III sucks. Lisa was ok but over-over-overpriced (may it rest in peace), Mac sucks and was over-overpriced, also very hostile to programmers who want to be different. I propose we move this senseless discussion about fruit companies out of this group. Note this group is concerned about micros, which happened to be made originally by ibm. NO FLAMES. I ate a dragon for breakfast. gervers@utcs