seaotter@athena.mit.edu (Stacy L Ramirez) (07/12/90)
In article <1421@pta.oz.au> major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: >geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Geoff Goodfellow) writes: > >>[Mitch Kapor asked me to post the following] >>NEW FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED TO ENCOURAGE COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATIONS >>POLICIES > >If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in >the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his >company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is >a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. > >The man's hypocracy is astounding! > >Major >major@pta.oz.au > >-- >Major >major@pta.oz.au The man is no longer at Lotus. He left the company he founded after tiring of the day-to-day business decisions of a firmly entrenched company. Kapor now works on his new company, On Technology(ies?). The head honcho at Lotus now is Jim Manzi, whose business experience Kapor sought in starting up Lotus. If you want to point fingers, point them at Mr Manzi.
pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (07/12/90)
In article <1421@pta.oz.au>, major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: > geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Geoff Goodfellow) writes: > >>[Mitch Kapor asked me to post the following] >>NEW FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED TO ENCOURAGE COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATIONS >>POLICIES > > If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in > the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his > company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is > a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. > > The man's hypocracy is astounding! > To be fair, I don't think that Mitch Kapor has much, if any say, in the running of Lotus Corp. these days, he may still own some stock but I don't think he's in charge. Admittedly, he should make Lotus first on the lawsuit list, but hey .... Of course, I don't know precisely what I'm talking about, but I seem to remember Mitch being ousted from control at some point. > Major > major@pta.oz.au -- Adam C. Engst pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "I ain't worried and I ain't scurried and I'm having a good time" -Paul Simon
dgh@Unify.Com (David Harrington) (07/12/90)
In article <1421@pta.oz.au> major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: >geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Geoff Goodfellow) writes: > >>[Mitch Kapor asked me to post the following] >>NEW FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED TO ENCOURAGE COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATIONS >>POLICIES > >If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in >the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his >company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is >a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. > I'm not commenting on the Lotus "look and feel" suits, but I think you are flaming the wrong person. Kapor left Lotus several years ago to start another company, ON Technology. There was an extensive article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal several months back about his efforts to bring ON's first product to market. I doubt he had anything to do with the litigation. -- David Harrington internet: dgh@unify.COM Unify Corporation ...!{csusac,pyramid}!unify!dgh 3870 Rosin Court voice: (916) 920-9092 Sacramento, CA 95834 fax: (916) 921-5340
sharon@asylum.SF.CA.US (Sharon Fisher) (07/12/90)
In article <1421@pta.oz.au> major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: >geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Geoff Goodfellow) writes: > >>[Mitch Kapor asked me to post the following] >>NEW FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED TO ENCOURAGE COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATIONS >>POLICIES > >If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in >the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his >company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is >a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. > >The man's hypocracy is astounding! First of all, Mitch Kapor hasn't worked for Lotus in several years. Second, he has testified before Congress about how companies should not use lawsuits to keep their positions in the marketplace. I have a 200-line eloquent statement from him on the subject. Believe me, he doesn't like Lotus' actions any more than you do.
major@pta.oz.au (Major) (07/12/90)
I, major@pta.oz.au (Major) wrote: | If Mitch [Kapor] is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in | the electronic age' perhaps he could start by pressing on his | company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is | a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. I am informed that Kapor sold Lotus, thanks to the folks that e-mailed me about this. I will issue a 'cancel' for the original message. I wish the foundation well, we will all be poorer if its goals are not met. -- Major major@pta.oz.au
dsp@polari.UUCP (Don Smith) (07/13/90)
In article <1421@pta.oz.au>, major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: > geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Geoff Goodfellow) writes: > > >[Mitch Kapor asked me to post the following] > >NEW FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED TO ENCOURAGE COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATIONS > >POLICIES > > If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in > the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his > company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is > a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. > > The man's hypocracy is astounding! > > Major > major@pta.oz.au I assume that you're refering to the lawsuits brought by Lotus in response to the recent ruling that the copyright on the command structure of 1-2-3 has been infringed upon.C I disagree with the Major about any hypocracy (sic). When dealing with patents, trademarks and copyrights the one word that I sort of disagree with is the "intellectual" in "intellectual property". If you should invent something or create a piece of art it certainly is the product of you intellect but many other things that you've done are only expressed intellectually. There are property laws concerning real estate and personal property. Laws which keep for instance a family from creating a productive farm through the labour of generations only to have that farm declared public property. I'm no computer programmer but I'd hate to spend years of my time working on a project and have it declared to be in the public domain or perceived as being in that domain so that other's will create derivitive works from my years of effort. I believe that the thoery concerning patents is that a basic contract exists between you and the Government. In exchange for making your invention public in the form of the patent itself you are granted remedies in court should someone else use your invention and for instance degrade it's inherent itegrity by changing a few things. I believe that the exchange of information concerning the state of the art in all fields is in the requesting and reading of the issued patent itself. I know that for myself it seems quite slow to write the Patent & Trademark office (PTO) for a copy of a patent that has just been granted. This really hit home since I've been on the net but there does exist a commercial service which will find the most recent patent you're interested in and fax a copy to you. Free speech is one thing and admire the support of Lotus and Apple in regard to the recend Operation Sun Devil. Having someone steal or use your property, your car, your real property, your house, your personal property is something that I disagree with in the same way that I would hate for someone to steal the product of my mind, soul, knowledge and "intellect". Perhaps the problem is that programmer's don't view themselves as the artists that they are. Don a dsp@polari.UUCP uw-beaver!sumax!polari!dsp B B B B B B B B B
archer@elysium.sgi.com (Archer Sully) (07/13/90)
In article <1421@pta.oz.au> major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: >geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Geoff Goodfellow) writes: >>[Mitch Kapor asked me to post the following] >>NEW FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED TO ENCOURAGE COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATIONS >>POLICIES >If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in >the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his >company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is >a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. >The man's hypocracy is astounding! Mitch Kapor left Lotus several years ago to pursue new interrests. Archer Sully | Ask not what you can do for you country, (archer@esd.sgi.com) | But what your country's been doing to you. | -- The Avengers
kdb@macaw.intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) (07/13/90)
In article <1421@pta.oz.au>, major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: > geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Geoff Goodfellow) writes: > > >[Mitch Kapor asked me to post the following] > >NEW FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED TO ENCOURAGE COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATIONS > >POLICIES > > If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in > the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his > company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is > a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. > > The man's hypocracy is astounding! > > Major > major@pta.oz.au Interesting you should mention that. He made mention of that very thing at the press conference I attended in Washington. I don't have the exact quote but, he basically said that he found it interesting that some people in the industry think that certain litigation is good until it gets turned against them or someone they "like". It seems that when someone whom we don't like (like Hackers or some company we don't like) is being sued it is ok, and nobody stops to think of what effect this is going to have on law in general. His example being that in general people in the industry felt that Paperback Software getting sued by Lotus was good, and didn't bother to help Paperback out. Now that Borland is getting sued they feel that this is bad, but now Lotus has 200 pages of court opinion supporting them, which makes their case much stronger. His idea, it seems, is to help out those cases where there is a "wrong" being commited that has far ranging implications. Hence the help to the so called Hackers. He made special mention that EFF is not a "Hacker Defense Fund" but rather putting their money up to help out those cases where obvious wrong is being done, such as the SS abuse of the constitutional rights of Steve Jackson in their search of Steve Jackson Games. For further information read their press releases. -- InterCon Systems Corporation 703.709.9890 703.709.9896 FAX
peter@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter Wu) (07/13/90)
In article <1421@pta.oz.au> major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: >geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Geoff Goodfellow) writes: > >>[Mitch Kapor asked me to post the following] >>NEW FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED TO ENCOURAGE COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATIONS >>POLICIES > >If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in >the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his >company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is >a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. He doesn't own Lotus anymore as far as I know. He has a new company in Mass. somewhere... >Major >major@pta.oz.au PQ?
tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts) (07/13/90)
In article <1421@pta.oz.au> major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: >geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Geoff Goodfellow) writes: > >If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in >the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his >company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is >a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. "his" company? Don't confuse Jim Manzi with Mitch Kapor. Mitch is the one with the technical background! :-) (For those that do not know, Mitch Kapor is now CEO of a startup called ON Technology and apparently has little to do with the day to day operations of Lotus beyond some stock ownership.) Tom Rombouts tomr@ashtate.A-T.com Voice: (213) 538-7108 Disclaimer: The above opinion is mine and mine alone.
mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin) (07/13/90)
In article <1421@pta.oz.au> major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: > >If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in >the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his >company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is >a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. > >The man's hypocracy is astounding! Kapor, who left the management of Lotus Development Corp. some years ago, is currently the president of On Technology. He has publicly opposed the outcome of the Lotus/Paperback Software lawsuit, and opposes Lotus's decision to sue Borland as well. It takes minimal research to uncover this information, Major. When you choose to flame someone, take pains to get your facts right. I was flown to Washington D.C. this week by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility to attend the press conference announcing the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as other meetings relating to the current government crackdown on so-called "hackers." Kapor remarked at several of these meetings that he regarded the Lotus/Paperback lawsuit as setting a bad precedent. --Mike Mike Godwin, UT Law School |"... and first I put my arms around him yes Just another bar-exam nerd | and drew him down to me so he could feel my mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | breasts all perfume yes and his heart was (512) 346-4190 | going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."
jamesd@techbook.com (James Deibele) (07/13/90)
In article <1421@pta.oz.au> major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: >geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Geoff Goodfellow) writes: > >>[Mitch Kapor asked me to post the following] >>NEW FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED TO ENCOURAGE COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATIONS >>POLICIES > >If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in >the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his >company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is >a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. > >The man's hypocracy is astounding! So's your ignorance. Mitch Kapor is not an active part of Lotus, and has sold all of his stock in that company. It's not his company anymore, the suits are running it these days and have been for some time (which may be why 1-2-3 2.2 and 3.0 have been met with yawns). He's also given money to defend people in cases involving freedom of e-mail. Check your facts before you flame ... -- jamesd@techbook.COM ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}!techbook!jamesd Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257 Technical books mailing list --- mail "techbook!tbj-request" "Sitting on the console all day, watching the news scroll away ..."
fozzy@bhpese.oz.au (Andrew Steele) (07/13/90)
major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: >geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Geoff Goodfellow) writes: >>[Mitch Kapor asked me to post the following] >>NEW FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED TO ENCOURAGE COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATIONS >>POLICIES >If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in >the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his >company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is >a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. >The man's hypocracy is astounding! Whilst I couldn't agree more with what Mitch is trying to achieve, I think that this is also a valid comment. WHEN ARE SOFTWARE COMPANIES GOING TO STOP WITH THIS STUPID LOOK AND FEEL RUBBISH? !!!!!!! Aside: I still can't see a flaw in the argument of the car analogy. That is, if this applied to cars then no-one would have the pedals in the same place etc. However, dispite the fact that all cars have pedals in the same place there are still plenty of people willing to buy all the different types of cars available. Put simply, let the market place rather than the court room decide which is the better product. I feel better now. :-) fozzy -- Andrew STEELE | "When Science finally makes it to the top BHP Information Technology, | of the hill of learning it will find Newcastle, NSW, Australia. | Religion has been sitting there all along." INTERNET: fozzy@bhpese.oz.au PHONE: +61 49 402126
clubmac@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Club Mac, Australia's Largest Mac Users Group) (07/14/90)
In article <1421@pta.oz.au> major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: >geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Geoff Goodfellow) writes: > >>[Mitch Kapor asked me to post the following] >>NEW FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED TO ENCOURAGE COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATIONS >>POLICIES > >If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in >the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his >company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is >a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. > >The man's hypocracy is astounding! What a sweeping statement! Don't blame Kapor for Lotus' sharp legal counsel. Until someone comes up for a case to destroy petty cases of alleged 'look and feel' piracy, lawyers will get rich from the workload. The biggest problem I see is that information as a resource and commodity will be controlled by a cartel of information services worldwide. When this control is established, then anyone who keeps independent records of information will be labelled a pirate. Governments haven't caught up with the industrial revolution, how can you expect them to keep up with the information revolution? Today, the play is being made for the minds of the children of the information revolution. Are there any underground movements for the truly free exchange of information? Certainly USENET and ACSnet don't offer such freedom. Jason Haines
terryl@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (07/14/90)
In article <12293@asylum.SF.CA.US> sharon@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher) writes: +In article <1421@pta.oz.au> major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: +>geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Geoff Goodfellow) writes: +> +>>[Mitch Kapor asked me to post the following] +>>NEW FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED TO ENCOURAGE COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATIONS +>>POLICIES +> +>If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in +>the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his +>company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is +>a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. +> +>The man's hypocracy is astounding! + +First of all, Mitch Kapor hasn't worked for Lotus in several years. +Second, he has testified before Congress about how companies should +not use lawsuits to keep their positions in the marketplace. I have a +200-line eloquent statement from him on the subject. Believe me, he +doesn't like Lotus' actions any more than you do. Then the question that goes begging is this: did he always believe this, or is this just a recent "face-change"? If he always did believe this, then did he try to change the way Lotus used lawsuits to "keep its position in the mar- ketplace", and is this possibly why he is no longer associated with Lotus??? No smileys here; these are legitimate questions, and since I have absolute- ly no desire to use a Pee-Cee, I have no idea what was/is happening in the mar- ketplace.....
jbickers@templar.actrix.co.nz (John Bickers) (07/14/90)
Quoted from - major@pta.oz.au (Major): > I wish the foundation well, we will all be poorer if its goals > are not met. There was an interesting article quoting Kapor on the subject of a "place" called "Cyberspace", in a special issue of comp.dcom.telecom. It seems to me that if what he terms cyberspace is without organization, and needs to be "civilised", this foundation is simply a method of filling a power vacuum. Which is not necessarily a good thing. Certainly isn't democratic. > Major -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.co.nz *** *** "Man, Machine -> Super Human Being" - Kraftwerk. ***
sharon@asylum.SF.CA.US (Sharon Fisher) (07/14/90)
In article <7796@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> terryl@sail.LABS.TEK.COM writes: >In article <12293@asylum.SF.CA.US> sharon@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher) writes: >+In article <1421@pta.oz.au> major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: >+>geoff@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Geoff Goodfellow) writes: >+> >+>>[Mitch Kapor asked me to post the following] >+>>NEW FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED TO ENCOURAGE COMPUTER-BASED COMMUNICATIONS >+>>POLICIES >+> >+>If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in >+>the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his >+>company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is >+>a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. >+> >+>The man's hypocracy is astounding! >+ >+First of all, Mitch Kapor hasn't worked for Lotus in several years. >+Second, he has testified before Congress about how companies should >+not use lawsuits to keep their positions in the marketplace. I have a >+200-line eloquent statement from him on the subject. Believe me, he >+doesn't like Lotus' actions any more than you do. > > Then the question that goes begging is this: did he always believe this, >or is this just a recent "face-change"? If he always did believe this, then did >he try to change the way Lotus used lawsuits to "keep its position in the mar- >ketplace", and is this possibly why he is no longer associated with Lotus??? I believe he left Lotus before they started sueing people. He's been out of there for a couple of years.
karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) (07/15/90)
>If Mitch is so concerned to protect freedom of 'communication in >the electronic age' poerhaps he could start by pressing on his >company (Lotus) to stop sueing enveryone who thinks that 'P' is >a good command for 'Print you spreadsheet'. Is Mitch Kapor still at Lotus? Why is it that some programmers think it's a good idea to plagiarize other's work. The Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet is old stuff and it's time to do new things. If Lotus has a copyright on its look and feel, then instead of copying it, why not make something that's truely better. It's tiring to see the same old programs over and over. Print authors are able to write new books despite copyright. Why can't programmers? Is cap-P really the best way to print a spreadsheet? Is the argument that they copied just cap-P, or is it that they copied practically the entire user interface? Why defend copying when there's so many new software products which could be written, but aren't? Bruce Karsh karsh@sgi.com
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) (07/15/90)
In article <64160@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: >... The Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet is old stuff and it's time to do new >things. > >Is cap-P really the best way to print a spreadsheet? Is the argument that >they copied just cap-P, or is it that they copied practically the entire >user interface? ... The real issue is that 1-2-3 is not just a spreadsheet, it is also a programming language. Spreadsheets can and invariably do include macros that work by stuffing keystrokes, and a large fraction of those stuffed keystrokes select things from menus. If you change the menu picks or the order of the menus, nobody's macros will work. As far as I can tell, the VP-Planner judge didn't appreciate the dual nature of software, as artwork and as machine. It's true, the original choice of the macro keywords in 1-2-3 was entirely arbitrary, but the existence of millions of saved spreadsheets now makes those keywords the spec for a machine that runs those spreadsheets. It is well-settled in the law that reverse-engineering machinery is entirely legal, and the appropriate protection for the workings of a machine is a patent. The visual appearance of the menus Borland's Quattro (I haven't looked at VP-Planner) is quite different from 1-2-3 menus. Only the letters that you need to make macros work are the same. Compare that to Borland's Paradox, which has a menu with completely different picks from 1-2-3 but which looks on the screen just like 1-2-3's. The ads for Paradox even claimed that Paradox was easy for 1-2-3 users to learn because the menus looked the same. It seems to me that if Lotus is really interested in protecting their menus' look and feel as opposed to their function, they would challenge Paradox. By the way, I don't begrudge Lotus' attempt to protect their rights any way they want to, but I am dismayed that the courts seem so sympathetic to their claims. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl Marlon Brando and Doris Day were born on the same day.
dab@Oswego.EDU (Dave Bozak) (08/15/90)
This message is empty.
dab@Oswego.EDU (Dave Bozak) (08/15/90)
In Forester & Morrison's book, "Computer Ethics: Cautionary Tales and
Ethical Dilemmas in Computing", there is the following:
"In turn, Lotus itself was sued for $100 million by the Software Arts
Procduts Corporation (SAPC), developers of the original VisiCalc program,
who claimed that Lotus had copied many of the command and keystrokes as
well as the screen displays of VisiCalc in 1-2-3. SAPC claimed that Lotus
founder Mitch Kapor 'misappropriated' copyrighted and confidential aspects
of the VisiCalc program while he was an employee of the exclusive
marketing agent for VisiCalc. SAPC further alleged that later, as a
product tester for an advanced version of VisiCalc, Kapor 'had access to
copyrighted and confidential aspects' of the program. He 'deliberately
sought to make the 1-2-3 program look and feel like VisiCalc'."
The authors reference "The Australian", 21 April 1987 and "Business
Week", 31 August 1987 and 22 May 1989.
Does anyone know the status of this lawsuit? Is it still alive?
Have they settled? Has it been thrown out?
Given the Lotus win over Paperback Software, the result of this suit
would be very interesting.
/\ David Alan Bozak, Computer Science Department
/ \ SUNY College at Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126 (315) 341-2347
_____/____\_____ Internet: dab@rocky.oswego.edu
/ / \ \ or dab%rocky.oswego.edu@nisc.nyser.net
/____/ \____\ UUCP: {cornell!devvax,rutgers!sunybcs}!oswego!rocky!dab