peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (03/29/88)
In article <249@sdti.UUCP>, mjy@sdti.UUCP (Michael J. Young) writes: > 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? I can't see that this would be the problem, since HP has no problems paying royalties to Microsoft (MS-DOS, Windows), AT&T (UNIX), and no doubt gobs of other places. This is posted to comp.misc and comp.windows.misc only. Massive and frivolous crossposting is grounds for being called all sorts of names, even if you can't be sued for it. -- -- 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*.
peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (03/29/88)
Note the less-than-massive crossposting. Pleas, people, let's take this discussion to comp.misc where it belongs. In article <3221@fluke.COM>, kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes: > 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. Microsoft Windows does not make use of a menu bar at the top of the screen, or a close gadget in the upper left corner, and so on. Microsoft's menu bars are even more obnoxious than Apple's. Microsoft's windowing is based on the concept of a process, not a file. > It is saying that MS's > copy is so close as to confuse a legal mind over whose product it is. Legal minds are awfully easy to confuse, then. > 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. They are. Windows looks radically different from Mac's Finder. Have you ever worked with Windows? > Commodore redrew their window stuff in an effort to preempt a > lawsuit by Apple for the same reason. Are you sure of this? The Amiga's windowing stuff still retains Apple's two biggest screwups... uh, features. Yeh, that's the ticket. -- -- 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*.
darryl@ism780c.UUCP (Darryl Richman) (04/03/88)
In article <3096@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >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. >I would say the little scroll arrow things in the corners are *similar* >but not identical. The question of law here is: are they "substantially similar", as judged by a "reasonable man"? >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 ? This is something that the jury will decide. Precedent says that if it IS the only way, or anyone trying to display this concept would have to do at least that, then Apple will lose here. But if there are alternative ways, they win. >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) Then we computer types had better agree amongst ourselves that we are doing this, rather than just looking for somebody's good work to copy. --Darryl Richman -- Copyright (c) 1988 Darryl Richman. The views expressed are the author's alone. INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation -- An Eastman Kodak Company ...!{cca!ima | sdcrdcf}!ism780c!darryl or darryl@ism780c.isc.com "I'm disappointed too, but keep in mind that Transmogrification is a new technology." --Calvin
erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (04/06/88)
In article <869@nuchat.UUCP>, peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > This is posted to comp.misc and comp.windows.misc only. Massive and frivolous > crossposting is grounds for being called all sorts of names, even if you > can't be sued for it. Yes you could be sued for it. This is America. You can sue anybody, for anything, anytime. :-) > -- a clone of Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva `-_-' > -- normally ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter U -- ... They'll take the place apart -- Any minute now -- I've seen it happen before on Mercury where we put out a Cool Issue -- And the law is moving in fast -- Nova Heat -- Not locals, boss -- This is *Nova Heat* -- Well boss?" -- from _The_Ticket_That_Exploded_, William S. Burroughs J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007