ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) (12/16/89)
Well, it has finally happend. Xerox is sueing Apple for $150million over
Apple's use of the Xerox-developed Star graphical user interface. I don't
have the newspaper article handy, but the suit filed last week (?) is very
similar to the one filed by Apple against Microsoft and HP Software (?) for
their Windows 2.03 and NewWave products.
Apple should have known better than to sue the one software company that
provides so much software for their machine. Did they think they could get
away with it without getting the attention of Xerox? Like the old saying goes,
people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
IMHO, I would like to see Apple get roasted by this lawsuit... Flames to
/dev/null, please.
--
>>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you *
University of Rochester * will screw it up." *
Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice."
ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ctne_ltd@uunetjeff@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeffrey M White) (12/16/89)
In article <4540@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: >Well, it has finally happend. Xerox is sueing Apple for $150million over >Apple's use of the Xerox-developed Star graphical user interface. I don't $150 million doesn't sound like a lot of money, considering Apple is a billion dollar company (aren't they). >IMHO, I would like to see Apple get roasted by this lawsuit... Flames to >/dev/null, please. I'm no legal expect, but I don't think Xerox has a very good case. For one thing, why sue now? The Mac/Lisa interface has been out for almost 8 years, with virtually no change. It's hardly like Apple all of a sudden came out with an interface that looks like the Xerox one. Note that this case is different from the Apple/Microsoft case, in which Apple and Microsoft already had an agreement. Apple sued because they felt the changes MS made in version 2.0 of windows weren't part of their previous agreement. Jeff White University of Pennsylvania jeff@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) (12/16/89)
In article <18158@netnews.upenn.edu> jeff@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Jeffrey M White) writes: >In article <4540@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: >>IMHO, I would like to see Apple get roasted by this lawsuit... Flames to >>/dev/null, please. > > I'm no legal expect, but I don't think Xerox has a very good case. For one >thing, why sue now? The Mac/Lisa interface has been out for almost 8 years, >with virtually no change. It's hardly like Apple all of a sudden came out From what I remember of the article, Xerox has waited all of this time while various "ambiguities" in the relevent laws have been ironed out in court over the last several years. -- >>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you * University of Rochester * will screw it up." * Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice." ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ctne_ltd@uunet
folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (12/16/89)
"From what I remember of the article, Xerox has waited all of this time while "various "ambiguities" in the relevent laws have been ironed out in court "over the last several years. The Wall Street Journal article makes it clear (to me, anyhow) that Xerox will have a tougher time against Apple than Apple will have against Microsoft: For one thing, Xerox waited so many years to lay its claim to the technology that Apple may be able to argue that Xerox lost its right to make that claim. [A software lawyer] said he also thinks that Xerox didn't publish its copyrights, which may mean it lost the right to enforce them. [The lawyer sites an Intel case where Intel lost its copyrights even though it published them, because it did not include a statement in a about them in a few licenses.] ... [According to an intellectual-property lawyer], Xerox waited so long to sue that he doubts that it can win damages. But he said that the court might agree to invalidate the Apple copyrights. -- Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)
millert@tramp.Colorado.EDU (MILLER TODD C) (12/16/89)
One reason Xerox is sueing Apple _now_ may be that Xerox was (fairly) recently
awarded patents on the Star operating environment. Patent infringements are
usually more easily proven than copyright ones.
Just a thought.
-Todd
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Todd Miller - millert@tramp.Colorado.EDU |
| Meet the new boss, just the same as old boss - The Who |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+csachs@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Colin Sachs) (12/16/89)
(Jeffrey M White) writes: [In reply to (Chris Newbold) re:Xerox suit) > I'm no legal expect, but I don't think Xerox has a very good case. For one > thing, why sue now? The Mac/Lisa interface has been out for almost 8 years, > with virtually no change. About two years ago (I think), Lotus thought about bringing suit against a rival copycat spreadsheet company producers of TWIN. Well, Lotus dropped that suit. The basis of the suit (from my recollection) was a "look and feel" argument. That is, TWIN sufficiently looked like and responded like the Lotus 1-2-3 package to be an infrigement of Lotus' copyright. But they forgot about the granddaddy of all spreadsheets: minicalc (I think thats the name). Anyway, this thing ran on CP/M systems and had rows and columns and command keys, just like, you guessed it Lotus 1-2-3 before Lotus Corp existed. I think the people at Lotus realized that the "look and feel" thing would backfire (the makers of the first spreadsheet could sue them for copywrite infrigment) if they went through with it. > It's hardly like Apple all of a sudden came out > with an interface that looks like the Xerox one. No. But the fact remains that Xerox had the graphical interface and windows concept long before the Apple Mac's even existed. And Apple did not develope the concept independently. > Note that this case is > different from the Apple/Microsoft case, in which Apple and Microsoft already > had an agreement. Apple sued because they felt the changes MS made in version > 2.0 of windows weren't part of their previous agreement. No. I think they sued because they felt that the changes MS made in v.2.0 of windows put that product and all PC machines in direct competition with the Macintosh computers. Apple set themselves up for the suit from Xerox by pushing their so-called proprietary rights to the graphic/windows interface. Plain and simple. -- Colin Sachs - csachs@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
eickmeye@girtab.usc.edu (Biff Henderson) (12/16/89)
The following article is from the Los Angeles Times, Friday,
December 15, 1989, page D3.
Xerox Sues Apple Over Graphics Software
by Carla Lazzareschi
Times Staff Writer
Xerox slapped Apple Computer with a $150-million lawsuit on
Thursday, contending that Apple is illegally using the software
that created the revolutionary graphics display on its highly
popular Macintosh personal computer.
The suit, filed late Thursday in federal court in San
Francisco, is a bizarre turn in an already twisted tale
surrounding the visual display currently used in Apple's
Macintosh models. The display resembles a desk top and allows a
user to manipulate data and issue instructions by using a set of
pictures, or "icons."
The Macintosh display, which has become an industry
standard, is a key reason for the machine's popularity since its
introduction in early 1984. Last year, Apple sued two computer
industry heavyweights, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard, for
allegedly infringing on its copyrighted display.
However, Xerox claims in its suit that the Macintosh display
"stems from work originally done by Xerox" and has been used by
Apple without Xerox permission. The suit noted that the display
was first used by Apple in its now discontinued Lisa model
introduced in 1982, as well as in the Macintosh.
Xerox said it has held a copyright on the display, which it
first introduced on its now discontinued Star computer system,
since 1981.
A Xerox spokesman said the suit was filed now because recent
changes in software protection and intellectual property laws
make it easier to assert its position. He declined to specify
those changes.
An Apple spokeswoman said the company believes that the suit
is without merit and that Xerox is attempting to assert its right
to copyright an idea, rather than merely an expression of an
idea.
The spokeswoman said Apple has long acknowledged that its
display was inspired by work done by others in the computer
industry. But, she said, Apple claims that the display is its
own through its investment of "time, people and effort" to create
the software.
Xerox said in the suit that Apple's use of the display and
its licensing of it to other computer companies has allowed Apple
to "unjustly" receive royalties and fees of more than $100
million. The suit also asks for at least another $50 million
because Apple's actions constitute "unfair competition and unfair
business practices."
Xerox Chairman and Chief Executive David T. Kearns said
efforts to reach an amicable settlement, including a proposal for
Apple to license the involved software from Xerox, were rebuffed
after Xerox approached Apple last week with a proposal.langz@asylum.SF.CA.US (Lang Zerner) (12/17/89)
In article <21301@mimsy.umd.edu> folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes: >The Wall Street Journal article makes it clear (to me, anyhow) that Xerox will >have a tougher time against Apple than Apple will have against Microsoft: > > [According to an intellectual-property lawyer], Xerox waited so long to sue > that he doubts that it can win damages. But he said that the court might > agree to invalidate the Apple copyrights. This is actually what I'd prefer to see. When I first heard about this story, I wanted Xerox to win the settlement, because I feel Apple deserves it for trying to perpetrate the myth of user-interface ownership. But then I realized that the myth would be perpetrated even further if Xerox won. I'd be happy if this were one of the cases that broke the camel's back, that the judge determines that `this is getting ridiculous,' and declares that both litigants lose. "Xerox: you lose because you don't own squat; Apple: you lose even more because you don't own the interface you have attempted to monopolize lige a mad dog for all these years. Now get the hell out of my courtroom, both of you!" Aahhhh. :-) -- Be seeing you... --Lang Zerner langz@asylum.sf.ca.us UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz ARPA:langz@athena.mit.edu "...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"
dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) (12/18/89)
In article <9073@asylum.SF.CA.US> langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) writes: > "Xerox: you lose because you don't own squat; Apple: you lose even more >because you don't own the interface you have attempted to monopolize lige a mad >dog for all these years. Now get the hell out of my courtroom, both of you!" After which Xerox introduces a new computer system that is faster, cleaner, easier to learn, more powerful for advanced users, and has better programming support. Oh, and it has a Mac emulation mode so we can all run our favorite software. And the big news: They ship in quantity one month after the machine is announced! It could happen. -- David Elliott dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce | (408)944-4073 "As I never read this newsgroup or my email, please send replies via carrier pigeon."
Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) (12/18/89)
< Apple should have known better than to sue the one software company that < provides so much software for their machine. Did they think they could get < away with it without getting the attention of Xerox? Like the old saying goe s, < people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Who's kidding whom here? Apple knows exactly what it's doing. It's an old strategy from poker known as the bluff, and they do it to superb advantage. First off, obviously Apple stole Xerox's idea. Steve Jobs visited the Star project in 1979 and was so impressed with the technology that he started the Lisa project and the rest is history. I don't know what kind of paperwork he signed, but assuming that nothing unusual was signed, the theft of this idea is perfectly legal because you can't copyright an idea, only its expression. Second, obviously Microsoft stole Apple's idea. They saw the Mac early on and instantly fell in love with it and realized they needed something to compete with it in the MS-DOS world and they shamelessly cloned it. But because they did not steal the expression of the idea, just the idea, what they did is perfectly legal. The issue of look and feel when you *identically* duplicate an application aside, clearly there are major differences between the Star, the Mac, and Windows. Clearly, each was developed from scratch and required major innovation. Clearly, each stole from its predecessor the basic concepts that make up the environment, but not the exact expression of those concepts in the form of either code or even look and feel. Basically, what all of this comes down to, I think, is that Apple does not want its healthy profit margins eroded by a clone industry. Thus Apple has quite astutely used its legal department to intimidate potential competitors. Apple must know that it cannot win the Microsoft case, just as it knows that Xerox cannot win a copyright infringement case against Apple. But it will fight to the end with sterness just the way a good poker player carries out his bluff to the end. And I'm sure that if someone tries to clone the Mac, Apple will sue again, even if it loses the Microsoft case. Just the legal costs of fighting this in court serve as an effective barrier to entry in Apple's market segment. Unfortunately, these lawsuits have very little to do with what is legally just, and they have a lot to do with marketing strategy. Will (sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Will)
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (12/18/89)
In article <1989Dec18.002600.13950@smsc.sony.com> dce@Sony.COM (David Elliott) writes: >In article <9073@asylum.SF.CA.US> langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) writes: >> "Xerox: you lose because you don't own squat; Apple: you lose even more >>because you don't own the interface you have attempted to monopolize lige a mad >>dog for all these years. Now get the hell out of my courtroom, both of you!" > >After which Xerox introduces a new computer system that is faster, cleaner, >easier to learn, more powerful for advanced users, and has better >programming support. Oh, and it has a Mac emulation mode so we can all >run our favorite software. > >And the big news: They ship in quantity one month after the machine is >announced! And not only that, it ships with a full set of Microsoft application software, all of it bug free and with no arbitrary limitations and a consistant user interface. Followups to alt.fish.stories. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/18/89)
In article <25153@cup.portal.com> Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) writes: | Apple must know that it cannot win the Microsoft | case, just as it knows that Xerox cannot win a copyright infringement | case against Apple. Xerox has a patent on some of the technology. This gives them the chance to go after Apple two ways. As to Apple suing a clone maker is they lose to Microsoft and/or Xerox, they have a good legal department, and would have to be VERY careful about a suit. There is a legal action for damages which can be brought in countersuit, based on the legal principle that "you can be sued for harrasment if you file a suit which you know has no legal merit." Certainly having just had their copyrights declared invalid or unenforcable would open them to such a suit. I would expect a suit on much more narrow grounds. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (12/19/89)
In article <4540@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: }IMHO, I would like to see Apple get roasted by this lawsuit... The way I see it, Apple can't win. If Xerox wins, they're out big bucks and lose the copyrights to their interface. If Xerox loses, the legal concept of a "look and feel" copyright is seriously weakened, if not outright invalidated, and Apple will have a h*ll of a time suing anyone else. About time, too. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimis non Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun | philabs | psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (12/20/89)
In article <4540@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: >IMHO, I would like to see Apple get roasted by this lawsuit... Flames to >/dev/null, please. I doubt seriosly that Apple will even skip a beat over this, its too little to late...Xerox had 10 years to think this over...what a waste of time and money... -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
jsp@key.COM (James Preston) (12/20/89)
In article <4543@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: >From what I remember of the article, Xerox has waited all of this time while >various "ambiguities" in the relevent laws have been ironed out in court >over the last several years. I.e. Xerox has been watching while Apple diligently built the scaffolding, tied the noose, stuck their head into it, and tightened the knot. Now Xerox is just asking the court to let _them_ pull the lever. Sounds fair to me. --James Preston
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (12/21/89)
BTW, folks, it's not some bunch of idealistic "open systems" folks at Xerox who are behind all this, attacking the "evil corporate giant" Apple. Nope. According to today's New York Times, "Both former and current Xerox executives said the company's decision to sue Apple can be attributed almost entirely to the arrival of William C. Lowe, a former executive of IBM, who joined Xerox last year." So, as I see it, it's one company attacking another, not some epic battle between good guys and bad guys. (There's nothing wrong with the guy coming from IBM; I just mean to imply that this is a business decision in all likelihood, not some altruistic crusade). BTW, I'm rooting for Apple, it if makes any difference. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) (12/21/89)
< Certainly having just had their copyrights declared invalid or < unenforcable would open [Apple] to such a suit. I would expect a suit on < much more narrow grounds. But when you have 500 million+ in cash sitting in the bank, the prospect of losing some of that seems a lot less frightening than the thought of allowing other companies to compete in your narrow market segment. Just by going through the process of suing other companies that try to clone their technology and losing those lawsuits, Apple effectively creates a multi-million dollar legal barrier to entry in their market.
kasdan@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John Kasdan) (12/22/89)
In article <25227@cup.portal.com> Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) writes: > > > ....... Just >by going through the process of suing other companies that try to clone >their technology and losing those lawsuits, Apple effectively creates a >multi-million dollar legal barrier to entry in their market. This is a commonly heard argument. But 17 USC (the copyright law) provides for my favorite oxymoron, reasonable attorney's fees, to the prevailing party in an infringement action. Thus, if the case is really clearcut, there should be no problem getting legal representation on contingency. In fact, I could make some suggestions myself :-) (Smiley face added in consideration of rules of professional conduct.) In fact, Osborne did not faint and go away when 1-2-3 went after VP Planner. I would be interested in hearing reliable stories of _any_ cases where the threat of suit drove off anyone except a pure rip-off. _________________ /KAS John Kasdan internet: kasdan@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu Columbia University, bitnet: kasdan@cunixC.cc.columbia.edu School of Law uucp: 435 West 116th St. {rutgers,seismo,topaz}!columbia!cunixd!kasdan New York, NY 10027 _________________ "Life is like an analogy", anonymous project leader.
shedevil@portia.Stanford.EDU (Anne Prisk) (12/22/89)
Wouldn't they use their own in-house counsel, which would make the contingency aspect irrelevant? (Although they certainly could still calculate reasonable fees).