gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (03/25/88)
We got a mailing today from Adobe Systems, Inc (the originators of
PostScript) that complains because we are calling our NeWS port
a "full and complete PostScript interpreter". They say, and I quote:
"The interpreter included in your system is licensed to you from Sun
and is not, therefore, a PostScript interpreter."
They go on to say that PostScript is a trademark for interpreters
as well as for a page description language.
They also mention that "It would be an improper use of our trademark
and a factual misrepresentation to refer to a third party interpreter
as using the PostScript page description language if the interpreter
uses a language which differs therefrom, e.g. which is either a subset
(uses less than all the PostScript language commands) or a superset
(uses more than the PostScript language commands) of the PostScript
page description language".
However, in the prospectus from their public stock offerring of
August 13, 1987, they said, "Since one of the company's goals is to
promote the PostScript language as a standard for the representation of
the printed page, the company placed the PostScript language in the
public domain and the company therefore derives no revenue from the use
of the PostScript language by third parties."
According to the above definition, either the Apple LaserWriter or the
LaserWriter Plus does not contain a PostScript interpreter, since they
have different sets of language commands, and Adobe thinks
sub/supersets are not PostScript. Also, the PostScript interpreter in
my original LaserWriter has, I suspect, at least as many bugs as NeWS,
as far as meeting the specs in the PostScript language reference
manual. It is clear to me that if Adobe's products don't pass the test of
what is really "PostScript", the test is worthless and cannot be used to
judge whether NeWS is PostScript.
Comments from the peanut gallery?
--
{pyramid,ptsfa,amdahl,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com
"Watch me change my world..." -- Liquid Theatrebenoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (03/26/88)
In article <4237@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > According to the above definition, either the Apple LaserWriter or the > LaserWriter Plus does not contain a PostScript interpreter, since they > have different sets of language commands, and Adobe thinks > sub/supersets are not PostScript. Also, the PostScript interpreter in > my original LaserWriter has, I suspect, at least as many bugs as NeWS, > as far as meeting the specs in the PostScript language reference > manual. It is clear to me that if Adobe's products don't pass the test of > what is really "PostScript", the test is worthless and cannot be used to > judge whether NeWS is PostScript. Agreed! At NCGA where they were demoing Display Postscript, some people asked about window management and how to do it using Display Postscript ...the Adobe rep stated correctly that you had to do it from the native window system. I mentioned NeWS. The Adobe rep stated quite smugly that *it* was *not* postscript. To his horror, I responded that he was right, NeWS was better since not only did it understand standard Postscript but you could do window management, color, etc. Immediately people wanted to know where they could see *it*. I told them to look at the Raster Technologies, Sun and Silicon Graphics booths. As I left the booth I heard the click and bang of a make-believe gun. -------------- Naturally my opinions are my own and not my employers.
tut%cairo@Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill) (03/29/88)
The recent Adobe flagellation of the PostScript trademark looks like a sign of an insecure company. An article in the current Barron's magazine recommends shorting Adobe. With a P/E ratio of 30, this would seem to make sense. The main problem here is that Adobe is already heavily shorted, with a short interest of 807,163 shares (6.35 times daily volume). That creates a nice floor under the stock as shorts are covered. At a recent Seybold conference, a new company in Mountain View announced font outline technology that appears to be faster and better than what Adobe offers. Let's admit it, the important part of PostScript is the font technology, not the language syntax (gag). There are lots of PostScript clone companies now, but most of them have not had compelling font technology. But it looks to me like they would, if they bought it from this new company.
bp@pixar.uucp (Bruce Perens) (03/30/88)
Just as AT&T has (and exercises) the right to restrict what you can call "UNIX", Adobe can restrict use of their tradmark "PostScript". While they do not restrict your implementing a PostScript-compatible interpeter, they can tell you it isn't PostScript because they control the name "PostScript". A lawyer should be able to help you find appropriate language. Ask if you can get away with saying "MacNeWS interpets the language defined in `The PostScript Language Reference Manual'". --- "UNIX" is a trademark of AT&T. "PostScript" is a trademark of Adobe Systems. "NeWS" is a trademark of Sun Microsystems. I don't know the trademark status of "MacNeWS". Bruce Perens, ucbvax,sun!pixar!bp 415-258-8167 These are my opinions, Pixar is not responsible for them.
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (04/01/88)
bp@pixar.uucp (Bruce Perens) wrote: > Just as AT&T has (and exercises) the right to restrict what you can > call "UNIX", Adobe can restrict use of their tradmark "PostScript". This begins to sound like Ada, where the specs are in the public domain but the War Dept. controls who can claim to have implemented it. You are free to implement an Ada, but you can't call it that. You are free to implement a PostScript, but you can't call it that? Something tells me our laws need changing when you can put something's specs in the public domain while keeping its name proprietary. It's a good thing the first guy to build a toaster didn't trademark "Toaster" or we'd have lawyers chasing us to call it a "bread browning machine". -- {pyramid,pacbell,amdahl,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com "Don't fuck with the name space!" -- Hugh Daniel
stpeters@dawn.steinmetz (Dick St.Peters) (04/03/88)
In article <4294@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >Something tells >me our laws need changing when you can put something's specs in the >public domain while keeping its name proprietary. > >It's a good thing the first guy to build a toaster didn't trademark >"Toaster" or we'd have lawyers chasing us to call it a "bread browning >machine". Under US law, if a trademark name becomes widely enough used for a type of product to be considered to have "entered the language" (I think that's the phrase lawyers use) as a generic designation for that type of product, then the trademark can be invalidated in court. A classic example is "kleenex". "Toaster" might well be another, for all I know. I've directed followups to misc.legal, since this is getting off track. -- Dick St.Peters GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@ge-crd.arpa uunet!steinmetz!stpeters
bp@pixar.uucp (Bruce Perens) (04/03/88)
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes in <4294@hoptoad.uucp> >It's a good thing the first guy to build a toaster didn't trademark >"Toaster" or we'd have lawyers chasing us to call it a "bread browning >machine". If a trade name becomes the "generic" name for something, the owner of the trade name can lose their right to restrict the name. Years ago there was a flap over the status of "Formica", a trade name that became close to generic for laminated mica surfacing. You've heard those silly commericals for "Sanka BRAND decaffinated coffee" - they go to great pains to establish that "Sanka" is not a generic name for decaffinated coffee. I don't know if any of this could apply to the PostScript page description language. Trade names can protect you, too... Suppose you were the vendor of "MacNeWS", and another company came out with a similar but not identical product, and called it "MacNEWS"... Bruce Perens