carl@dandelion.CI.COM (Carl A. Dunham) (03/24/88)
In article <663@csm9a.UUCP> japplega@csm9a.UUCP (Joe Applegate) writes: > >Years ago they forced DRI to destroy GEM, which was my favorite operating >environment for the PC, using the same logic of "it's ours cause we stole >it first!". Now that windows and the Presentation Manager have become a >viable market their pulling the same charade. Fortunately Microsoft is >in a much better position to legally fight this harassent than DRI ever >was! > This brings up an interesting point. What exactly does Apple hope to gain here? With DRI, they might have wanted to scare off some small-fry that thought they could make some bucks with Mac-clones (albeit not many, cf. Atari and Commodore). With this suit, either they win, and User Interface technology is frozen in its tracks (so much for "Changing the Way People Think"), or they lose, and their "look and feel" legal position is shattered. The third alternative, that is settling, might delay some product introductions, but shouldn't really change much for anyone. I suspect that to some degree, Apple is trying to get the legal system to define more precisely what rights they have to their interface ideas, and to what extent look and feel can be protected. I'll be very interested to see what the final word is on this one. By the way, the current precident for the "look and feel" defense is Visicorp vs Lotus, isn't it? Didn't Apple and DRI settle out of court? By the way, I'm not a lawyer, and am in no way legally inclined, so take my views with a grain of salt.
mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) (03/24/88)
From article <4283@dandelion.CI.COM>, by carl@dandelion.CI.COM (Carl A. Dunham): > This brings up an interesting point. What exactly does Apple hope to > gain here? With DRI, they might have wanted to scare off some > [...] > "look and feel" legal position is shattered. The third alternative, > that is settling, might delay some product introductions, but > shouldn't really change much for anyone. I think that delay is exactly the game here. The Mac already has a nice lead in the "user-friendly" race. If they could hold off the competition for even another year or so --- like, long enough to introduce a real operating system for the Mac --- that lead could become almost insurmountable. -- Mike Coffin mike@arizona.edu Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci. {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4}!arizona!mike Tucson, AZ 85721 (602)621-4252
kolding@ji.Berkeley.EDU (Eric Koldinger) (03/24/88)
In article <4283@dandelion.CI.COM> carl@orchid.UUCP (Carl A. Dunham) writes: >This brings up an interesting point. What exactly does Apple hope to >gain here? With DRI, they might have wanted to scare off some >small-fry that thought they could make some bucks with Mac-clones >(albeit not many, cf. Atari and Commodore). With this suit, either >they win, and User Interface technology is frozen in its tracks (so >much for "Changing the Way People Think"), or they lose, and their >"look and feel" legal position is shattered. I think this is probably what Apple is after. To establish the legal limits of how much alike "look and feel" covers (plus maybe slowing down the introduction of the OS/2 Presentation Manager, and can you really blame them for wanting to slow that down even more than it already is?). It will set important precendents and limits for the interface people, much the same way that the Intel vs. NEC suit set precedents for uCode. Tell me, is anyone boycotting Intel these days? I didn't really think so. _ /| Eric \`o_O' kolding@ji.berkeley.edu ( ) "Gag Ack Barf" {....}!ucbvax!ji!kolding U
mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Mark Interrante) (03/24/88)
In article <4283@dandelion.CI.COM> carl@orchid.UUCP (Carl A. Dunham) writes: >... With this suit, either >they win, and User Interface technology is frozen in its tracks (so >much for "Changing the Way People Think"), or they lose, and their >"look and feel" legal position is shattered. The third alternative, >that is settling, might delay some product introductions, but >shouldn't really change much for anyone. If they Win then interface technology is not frozen at all. It just means that other companies have to develop interfaces that dont look like the MAC. Mark Interrante CIS Department University of Florida Internet: mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu Gainesville, FL 32611 (904) 335-8051
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (03/31/88)
In article ... kolding@ji.Berkeley.EDU (Eric Koldinger) writes: > is?). It will set important precendents and limits for the interface > people, much the same way that the Intel vs. NEC suit set precedents > for uCode. Tell me, is anyone boycotting Intel these days? I didn't really > think so. The situtions are completely different. There is a huge difference between outright copying something and reverse-engineering it (even granting that uSoft Windows is a MacOS clone... something I am by no means claiming). Not that sending a message to intel is a bad idea. They have done the whole computer industry a disservice by their militant segmentism. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
tgm@xroads.UUCP (Sloan Tash) (04/05/88)
Wouldn't that just be a shame (if Apple won..). The other companies would have to come up with their own ideas. Given that Apple did take the concept from Xerox, they developed it far beyond anything Xerox did. If the other companies want to take the same ideas that Apple started with, I don't think there would be a problem.. It's that they want to take Apple's ideas straight across. tgm crash!xroads!tgm -- \ / C r o s s r o a d s C o m m u n i c a t i o n s \/ (602) 971-2240 /\ (602) 992-5007 300|1200 Baud 24 hrs/day / \ ihnp4!crash!xroads!*
wnp@chinet.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (04/06/88)
In article <453@xroads.UUCP> tgm@xroads.UUCP (Sloan Tash) writes: >Wouldn't that just be a shame (if Apple won..). The other companies would have >to come up with their own ideas. Given that Apple did take the concept from >Xerox, they developed it far beyond anything Xerox did. If the other companies >want to take the same ideas that Apple started with, I don't think there would >be a problem.. It's that they want to take Apple's ideas straight across. Not quite. Last week's Infoworld showed a photograph of the HP New Wave display as distributed by HP, and it does not look similar to the MAC's display AT ALL. Next to it they show a photograph of a New Wave display as filed by Apple in its complaint, and it looks VERY SIMILAR to the MAC's display. In other words, unlike the MAC's display, the HP New Wave display can be customized very drastically by the user, which is more than can be said for Apple's environments. Seems to me that, given that HP did take the concept from Apple (who took it from Xerox), they developed it far beyond anything Apple did. I don't think PC users, who know how fast their machines run in text mode would stand for taking "Apple's ideas straight across." It would slow their machines down too much. Wolf Paul wnp@chinet
stevewa@upvax.UUCP (Steve Ward) (04/08/88)
In article <453@xroads.UUCP> tgm@xroads.UUCP (Sloan Tash) writes: >Wouldn't that just be a shame (if Apple won..). The other companies would >have >to come up with their own ideas. Given that Apple did take the concept from >Xerox, they developed it far beyond anything Xerox did. If the other >companies >want to take the same ideas that Apple started with, I don't think there >would >be a problem.. It's that they want to take Apple's ideas straight across. I disagree with your stand on a couple of points... 1. Usually it's good that individual companies come up with alternative solutions to a given "problem", but when you're trying to set up a STANDARD it's not such a good idea. Remember what happened about 12 years ago with VCRs? Two different companies came up with two different solutions to the same problem, namely VHS and Betamax. The result? several years of confusion for consumers, and a division of the market into two segments which, while basically the same, were cut off from each other by the difference in size of a cassette. Software (video tape) developers ended up spending twice as much to get their product out to the entire market, and companies not only had to compete against each other on product merit, but also on format superiority. Japan, Inc has learned its lesson, that's why they all get together and standardize things (8mm video, Digital audio cassette, etc) before they get onto the market. I don't think anyone wants to see the Beta/VHS war become the Apple/HP/ Microsoft/IBM/Commodore/Atari/etc. war. Such a conflict can only divide and distract the industry. Software developers would be stuck having to completely re-write applications for each environment they want to market to. No, a standard of some sort is needed. 2. I, for one, think MS-Windows is BETTER than the Mac OS in several ways. There are more ways to do things than on the Mac (usually two ways with the mouse, one with the keyboard), It has better keyboard support, I can buy whatever kind of pointing device I like and it will work, I can change the colors of the windows and what their borders look like, I can tell it what programs I want running at power-up, etc. etc. You see...Microsoft DID improve upon Apple's "creation" (I've never seen New Wave except for the ad in a magazine, and it didn't really look that much like a Mac to me, so I can't speak to that issue). With a standardized user interface, everyone wins. Users can move from machine to machine without having to re-learn, developers can port their applications from machine to machine more easily, manufacturers can concentrate on making their machines better instead of trying to sell you on why their OS is better than someone else's. I don't see how anyone benefits from NOT having a standard. Steve Ward stevewa@upvax.UUCP !tektronix!upvax!stevewa
vita@macbeth.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) (04/08/88)
In article <394@upvax.UUCP> stevewa@upvax.UUCP (Steve Ward) writes: >In article <453@xroads.UUCP> tgm@xroads.UUCP (Sloan Tash) writes: >>Wouldn't that just be a shame (if Apple won..). The other companies would >>have >>to come up with their own ideas. Given that Apple did take the concept from >>Xerox, they developed it far beyond anything Xerox did. If the other >>companies >>want to take the same ideas that Apple started with, I don't think there >>would >>be a problem.. It's that they want to take Apple's ideas straight across. > >I disagree with your stand on a couple of points... > >1. Usually it's good that individual companies come up with alternative > solutions to a given "problem", but when you're trying to set up a > STANDARD it's not such a good idea. Remember what happened about 12 > years ago with VCRs? Two different companies came up with two different > solutions to the same problem, namely VHS and Betamax. The result? Yes, I agree that standards are a good thing. However, a company which INVENTS a standard should have some control over its usage. They could choose to let others use it for free, or they could choose to charge some kind of licensing fee. Using the VCR case, for example, I believe that companies manufacturing VHS machines *license* the technology from the inventor of the VHS standard (JVC?). > I don't think anyone wants to see the Beta/VHS war become the Apple/HP/ > Microsoft/IBM/Commodore/Atari/etc. war. Such a conflict can only divide > and distract the industry. Software developers would be stuck having to > completely re-write applications for each environment they want to market > to. No, a standard of some sort is needed. Yes. But if companies want to use the Apple standard, then they should license it from Apple. If not, they should develop their own standard. However, they should not just copy Apple's standard. A lot of people seem to think that the Apple interface IS the PARC interface, or that it is the only possible derivation of the PARC concepts. Not true. Take a look at, say, SunView. Here's a windowing system based on many of the same PARC principles as the Mac interface (i.e., bit-mapped display, windows, mouse), but whose interface is MUCH different from the Mac interface. Note that Apple is NOT suing Sun over SunView. Apple is not claiming a monopoly on PARC-style interfaces. >2. I, for one, think MS-Windows is BETTER than the Mac OS in several ways. Well, I think that some of your listed "improvements" are somewhat dubious...to wit: > There are more ways to do things than on the Mac (usually two ways with > the mouse, one with the keyboard) Hmm, well, the Mac generally supports two ways: one with the mouse, one with the keyboard. I don't know how much of a benefit a second mouse method would be. By the way, what is Window's other moue method? >It has better keyboard support Can you clarify what exactly you mean by "better keyboard support"? >I can buy whatever kind of pointing device I like and it will work Well, I don't know if this is entirely true. I doubt I could attach a Mac mouse to a Windows machine and have it work :-). Do you mean that there are a variety of pointing devices that can be attached? Well, this is true on the Mac as well. There's something called the Apple Desktop Bus, which is a standard which Mac input devices follow. There are gads of ADB devices around, from alternate mice, trak-balls, graphics tablets, etc, etc. >I can change the colors of the windows and what their borders look >like This exists on the Mac also. In fact, you can change the colors of just about every conceivable portion of the display, down to the color of the text in menus. > I can tell it > what programs I want running at power-up, etc. etc. This is true on the Mac also (the "Set Startup" command). > You see...Microsoft > DID improve upon Apple's "creation" Well, maybe, but I haven't seen any examples of such improvement... >With a standardized user interface, everyone wins. Users can move from machine >to machine without having to re-learn, developers can port their applications >from machine to machine more easily, manufacturers can concentrate on making >their machines better instead of trying to sell you on why their OS is better >than someone else's. I don't see how anyone benefits from NOT having a >standard. > Again, I agree. But Microsoft and HP should try to convince Apple to license their standard, rather than just ripping it off. ---- Mark Vita ARPA: vita@ge-crd.ARPA General Electric Company UUCP: vita@desdemona.steinmetz.UUCP Corporate R & D vita@desdemona.steinmetz.ge.com Schenectady, NY desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (04/08/88)
I really doubt that apple cares terribly much that HP's New Wave
can bo set up to look similar to the MacIntosh environment. I
suspect that Apple does see the new crop of more competent
windowing products as honest competetion to the MacIntosh.
One way that Apple can protect its posterior is to prevent software
writers from abandoning the MacIntosh ship. Software writers being
pragmatic will likely write for the market where they can make the
greatest number of sales. When the MacIntosh was the only game in
town it had a guaranteed audiance of software writers. Lately,
software wrtriters have had to do some serious head scratching over
OS/2 and Windows 386. Both Windows and OS/2, which currently have
only small markets have the potential for a huge installed base in
the next year or two.
Since OS/2 and Windows are still either not in the marketplace or
have very small shares, a vendor that writes to those environments
now has to hedge a bet against potential future sales. This is not
a good thing for small (innovative?) vendors that have to live
pretty much hand-to-mouth from current sales. A small vendor that
sees a cloudy future in OS/2 will probably opt for the MacIntosh
market where there is the certainty of current income (provided the
porduct is good).
So... the law suit is a good way for Apple to keep its hands on the
software reins and keep their market share by being able to offer
the most innovative and up-to-date products for its machine. Not a
particularly moral thing for Apple to do, but a practical thing.
--Bill
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
OS/2? Who needs half an operating system?jqj@uoregon.UUCP (JQ Johnson) (04/09/88)
Personally, I would prefer to see a standardized user interface (i.e. with the SAME "look and feel") available for all the machines my users are likely to touch. Since we don't yet know how to design a good user interface, this couldn't be the only one available, but it sure would be nice if I could take a secretary who was used to running Microsoft Word on a Mac and give him a PC running Microsoft Word; if I did that today, I would also have to give him a course on using DOS. It is in the interests of the companies to protect proprietary interfaces, but is in the interest of the users to point out the extent to which such interfaces are based on public domain technology. Anyone interested in writing a "friend of the court" brief?
ralf@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralf Brown) (04/09/88)
In article <10322@steinmetz.ge.com> desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) writes: }Again, I agree. But Microsoft and HP should try to convince Apple to }license their standard, rather than just ripping it off. }---- }Mark Vita ARPA: vita@ge-crd.ARPA Take a look at the March 28 InfoWorld and see how different the default New Wave user interface is from the Mac....Somebody at Apple spent a lot of time *making* the user interface a Mac-clone. -- {harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: (412)268-3053 (school) ARPA: RALF@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU |"Tolerance means excusing the mistakes others make. FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | Tact means not noticing them." --Arthur Schnitzler BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA -=-=- DISCLAIMER? I claimed something?
jetzer@studsys.mu.edu (jetzer) (04/09/88)
In article <394@upvax.UUCP>, stevewa@upvax.UUCP (Steve Ward) writes: > In article <453@xroads.UUCP> tgm@xroads.UUCP (Sloan Tash) writes: > >Wouldn't that just be a shame (if Apple won..). The other companies would > >have > >to come up with their own ideas. Given that Apple did take the concept from > >Xerox, they developed it far beyond anything Xerox did. If the other > >companies > >want to take the same ideas that Apple started with, I don't think there > >would > >be a problem.. It's that they want to take Apple's ideas straight across. > I disagree with your stand on a couple of points... > 1. Usually it's good that individual companies come up with alternative > solutions to a given "problem", but when you're trying to set up a > STANDARD it's not such a good idea. Remember what happened about 12 > years ago with VCRs? Two different companies came up with two different > solutions to the same problem, namely VHS and Betamax. The result? > several years of confusion for consumers, and a division of the market > into two segments which, while basically the same, were cut off from > each other by the difference in size of a cassette. Comparing windowing systems to videotape formats is a poor analogy in several respects The difference between VHS and Beta, like between IBM and Mac, is a hardware difference. Even though the two tape formats (like computers) work on simliar concepts (put a magnetic tape in the little slot, press the play button), there are differences in the way that the information is stored on the tape. This is essentially the 'operating system' of the tape. The computer owners are still "cut off from each other by differences," but these are hardware differences as well. Also, nearly everyone will concede that VHS won in the VHS vs Beta battle (Guess that means that Mac is the VHS and IBM is the Beta :-). Most VCRs now in use the VHS format/operating system. *However*, anyone who makes a VHS VCR or VHS tape has to pay a royalty to the company who started the VHS format (JVC, if memory serves me right). Gee, the setter of a standard wanting to charge others when they use this format. Almost sounds familiar, eh? > I don't see how anyone benefits from NOT having a > standard. I'm sure that Apple wouldn't mind having the Mac windowing system become the standard. They just expect to be compensated by people who want to use their standard. -- Mike Jetzer "If you can't be right, be forceful"
rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.) (04/10/88)
in article <106@studsys.mu.edu>, jetzer@studsys.mu.edu (jetzer) says: > I'm sure that Apple wouldn't mind having the Mac windowing system become the > standard. They just expect to be compensated by people who want to use their > standard. [the following is based on the Infoworld article accompanying the pictures of NewWave and the like... Check it out for the full story] 1) Microsoft helped apple invent the apple windowing system, including such concepts as "Zooming", Menu bars, and Icon dragging and etc. According to the Microsoft CEO "There were more Microsoft programmers working on the thing than ther were apple programmers" 2) Microsoft HAS a licence agreement which covers the Machontosh stuff along with A hell of a lot else. Check out the article, It's amazing. Makes Apple sound like they are having a real personal problem. Rob. Disclaimer: The above was from memory, the quotes are not exact.
stevewa@upvax.UUCP (Steve Ward) (04/11/88)
In article <394@upvax.UUCP> I wrote: .> .>1. Usually it's good that individual companies come up with alternative .> solutions to a given "problem", but when you're trying to set up a .> STANDARD it's not such a good idea. Remember what happened about 12 .> years ago with VCRs? Two different companies came up with two different .> solutions to the same problem, namely VHS and Betamax. The result? Then in article <10322@steinmetz.ge.com> desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) replied: > >Yes, I agree that standards are a good thing. However, a company >which INVENTS a standard should have some control over its usage. >They could choose to let others use it for free, or they could choose >to charge some kind of licensing fee. Using the VCR case, for >example, I believe that companies manufacturing VHS machines *license* >the technology from the inventor of the VHS standard (JVC?). > >[...] if companies want to use the Apple standard, then they should >license it from Apple. If not, they should develop their own >standard. However, they should not just copy Apple's standard. > You seem to forget what we've seen in a number of previous postings (I don't have references offhand) that HP tried to liscense from Apple for New Wave, which Apple REFUSED to do, so HP went ahead and finished their product anyway, and Microsoft did have SOME SORT (details? I haven't seen any) of agreement with Apple concerning the development of Windows. What really bugs me about this suit is that (A) what it really looks like is that Apple is afraid the "rest of us" are catching up to them (because they really haven't been doing much in terms of improving their interface), so they are using this suit as a stop-gap measure to buy time, or else they've decided to go after the PC market (via Claris) and decided it would be easier if there weren't any competing offerings... and (B) that the end result of all of this is that end-users and smaller developers end up getting reamed. >A lot of people seem to think that the Apple interface IS the PARC >interface, or that it is the only possible derivation of the PARC >concepts. Not true. Take a look at, say, SunView. Here's a >windowing system based on many of the same PARC principles as the Mac >interface (i.e., bit-mapped display, windows, mouse), but whose >interface is MUCH different from the Mac interface. Note that Apple >is NOT suing Sun over SunView. Apple is not claiming a monopoly on >PARC-style interfaces. That may be true...I haven't seen SunView, but I have seen Smalltalk-80 and while it and the Mac interface have many important (for legal types) differences, I would say that the "look and feel" is similar...What does look and feel mean, anyway? I thought you weren't able to sue people over things so general and vague as that...it seems usually there has to be some concrete statement of the infringement(?) (several points against my examples deleted...points well taken) There's one place where Windows definately beats Mac...You can turn the interface OFF if you want to! Let's face it, there are some times when you just don't need a user friendly interface and can make good use of the computing power that keeping a bitmapped display robs from you...the way the Mac is set up, if you want to get that power back, you have to buy another computer! One of the reasons I decided to buy an AT instead of a Mac was that for a similar power processor I got more power as a user from the AT than from the Mac. (another reason was cost...you just can't get as much bang for the buck from Apple as you can from a well built IBM clone...maybe one day Apple will figure out that one big reason PCs caught on so well was the fact that a number of vendors were producing them, some better than the original...maybe IBM will learn that too, and stop threatening to sue companies wanting to make PS2 clones?) >[...] But Microsoft and HP should try to convince Apple to >license their standard, rather than just ripping it off. THEY (at least HP) TRIED. What else can they do? >---- >Mark Vita ARPA: vita@ge-crd.ARPA >General Electric Company UUCP: vita@desdemona.steinmetz.UUCP >Corporate R & D vita@desdemona.steinmetz.ge.com >Schenectady, NY desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP Steve Ward stevewa@upvax.UUCP !tektronix!upvax!stevewa
ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (Phil Ritzenthaler) (04/11/88)
In article <10322@steinmetz.ge.com>, vita@macbeth.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) writes: > > Yes, I agree that standards are a good thing. However, a company > which INVENTS a standard should have some control over its usage. > > But if companies want to use the Apple standard, then they should > license it from Apple. Ah, but did Apple license is from Xerox?? Did Xerox abandon their invention of the interface that the Mac uses?? Nobody seems to know, but if the answer is NO, the I think Xerox should harass Apple with a lawsuit of their own. They're just as big and it will make lawyers happy for years! Phil Ritzenthaler |USnail: University Computer Services Computer Graphics Research Consultant | 241 Math-Science Bldg. UUCP :.!cbosgd!osu-cis!bgsuvax!ritzenth | Bowling Green State University CSNET: ritzenth@bgsu.edu | Bowling Green, OH 43403-0125 ARPA : ritzenth%bgsu.edu@relay.cs.net | Phone: (419) 372-2102
vita@sungoddess.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) (04/13/88)
In article <396@upvax.UUCP> stevewa@upvax.UUCP (Steve Ward) writes: >>[...] if companies want to use the Apple standard, then they should >>license it from Apple. If not, they should develop their own >>standard. However, they should not just copy Apple's standard. >> >You seem to forget what we've seen in a number of previous postings (I don't >have references offhand) that HP tried to liscense from Apple for New Wave, >which Apple REFUSED to do, so HP went ahead and finished their product anyway, >and Microsoft did have SOME SORT (details? I haven't seen any) of agreement >with Apple concerning the development of Windows. Well, of course, a company which invents something is not *obligated* to license it. They may feel it is more in their interest not to license it. And the fact that they refuse to license their invention does not give others the right to steal it. (Of course, the 1985 agreement may indeed grant Microsoft a license to use the Macintosh interface. I have read the agreement, but it remains unclear.) >What really bugs me about this suit is that (A) what it really looks like is >that Apple is afraid the "rest of us" are catching up to them (because they >really haven't been doing much in terms of improving their interface), so >they are using this suit as a stop-gap measure to buy time, or else they've >decided to go after the PC market (via Claris) and decided it would be easier >if there weren't any competing offerings... and (B) that the end result >of all of this is that end-users and smaller developers end up getting reamed. I don't think that this is really the issue. I look at it this way: Apple invested a lot of time, effort and creativity in coming up with the Macintosh interface. At the time, there was nothing else like it in the microcomputer market, and there was a significant amount of risk involved in introducing a machine with such an interface. And in fact, when it was introduced, it was roundly ridiculed by most of the mainstream (i.e. MS-DOS) community (the "real men don't use icons" attitude.) Now that the Macintosh interface has become successful, Apple expects some payoff for having expended the effort and taking the risk (rightfully so, in my opinion). The Macintosh interface represents a significant competitive advantage for Apple over other PC manufacturers. In fact, it can be argued that the interface is the only real distinguishing characteristic of Apple's Macintosh line over competing machines. I don't think it should be surprising, then, that Apple should use whatever means at its disposal to try to maintain this competitive advantage. If they don't, they're digging their own grave. This is precisely the reason we have patent and copyright laws in the first place. If a company spends a good deal of money and effort coming up with some original idea, and its competitors are allowed to simply rip it off, then companies would have no incentive to innovate. You mention that the Apple suit is bugging a lot of people. Well, first of all, let me point out that the people being "bugged" are, for the most part, owners of MS-DOS machines. The reason they are annoyed is that Apple is not letting them use Apple-invented technology on their non-Apple equipment. Well, the answer to this, however asinine it may sound, is that if you want to benefit from this Apple-invented technology, you should buy Apple equipment. By way of comparison, I'm sure that a lot of Franklin Ace owners were pissed off when Apple sued Franklin for copyright infringement. However, this doesn't mean that Apple's suit was unjustified. >>A lot of people seem to think that the Apple interface IS the PARC >>interface, or that it is the only possible derivation of the PARC >>concepts. Not true. Take a look at, say, SunView. Here's a >>windowing system based on many of the same PARC principles as the Mac >>interface (i.e., bit-mapped display, windows, mouse), but whose >>interface is MUCH different from the Mac interface. Note that Apple >>is NOT suing Sun over SunView. Apple is not claiming a monopoly on >>PARC-style interfaces. > >That may be true...I haven't seen SunView, but I have seen Smalltalk-80 and >while it and the Mac interface have many important (for legal types) >differences, I would say that the "look and feel" is similar...What does >look and feel mean, anyway? I thought you weren't able to sue people over >things so general and vague as that...it seems usually there has to be some >concrete statement of the infringement(?) I don't really know what "look and feel" means, either. Most of the relevant precedents are from cases involving greeting cards and arcade games. Hopefully, this is one of the things that will be clarified by the suit. >(several points against my examples deleted...points well taken) > >There's one place where Windows definately beats Mac...You can turn the >interface OFF if you want to! Let's face it, there are some times when >you just don't need a user friendly interface and can make good use of the >computing power that keeping a bitmapped display robs from you...the way the >Mac is set up, if you want to get that power back, you have to buy another >computer! I'll grant this, though I think the claim that a bit-mapped display and friendly user interface "robs you of computing power" is generally overstated. Also, it's becoming less and less of an issue as the horsepower of common microprocessors increases. Also, note that there *are* alternative user interfaces for the Macintosh, including some which are command-line oriented (examples: the RasNIX desk accessory and the MPW shell, both of which provide a Unix-style environment.) >One of the reasons I decided to buy an AT instead of a Mac was that for a >similar power processor I got more power as a user from the AT than from the >Mac. (another reason was cost...you just can't get as much bang for the >buck from Apple as you can from a well built IBM clone... There's no question that you can get a better "bang for the buck" from an AT clone than from a Macintosh, in terms of raw performance. Despite the recent price cuts, I still think that Apple's machines are absurdly overpriced. However, as long as Apple is making money hand over fist selling at those prices, they will probably continue to do so. Also, note that part of the reason people pay such a premium price for Macintoshes is to receive the benefit of the nice user interface. >[...] maybe one day >Apple will figure out that one big reason PCs caught on so well was the >fact that a number of vendors were producing them, some better than the >original...maybe IBM will learn that too, and stop threatening to sue >companies wanting to make PS2 clones?) I question the wisdom of a company allowing or encouraging the development of cheap clones. While it may be good for the average consumer in the short run, it may not be in the long run, and it is certainly bad for the original company. For example, I don't think that IBM has benefited from the proliferation of cheap PC clones. Though they did help establish the PC as a standard, the overall result has been decreased market share and lower profits for IBM. I mean, I'm no fan of IBM, but I can see where they might be a bit miffed seeing other companies making money off of their invention. >>[...] But Microsoft and HP should try to convince Apple to >>license their standard, rather than just ripping it off. > >THEY (at least HP) TRIED. What else can they do? As I've said before, the fact that they tried to license it and failed does not constitute justification for stealing it. What else can they do? How about: come up with something BETTER. Instead of setting out to imitate the Macintosh interface (as Microsoft did with Windows), they could start from basic PARC concepts (or maybe something else altogether), put in a few person-years of effort, as Apple did, and create something truly original; different from, and, yes, perhaps even better than, what Apple has. Essentially, they could kick Apple's butt at their own game. Apple does not have a monopoly on bright, creative people. I'm sure that Microsoft and/or HP is fully capable of such an effort. I challenge them to give it a try. It's what make competition interesting. >Steve Ward >stevewa@upvax.UUCP >!tektronix!upvax!stevewa ---- Mark Vita ARPA: vita@ge-crd.ARPA General Electric Company UUCP: vita@desdemona.steinmetz.UUCP Corporate R & D vita@desdemona.steinmetz.ge.com Schenectady, NY desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (04/13/88)
In article <1872@bgsuvax.UUCP> ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (Phil Ritzenthaler) writes: |In article <10322@steinmetz.ge.com>, vita@macbeth.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) writes: |> |> Yes, I agree that standards are a good thing. However, a company |> which INVENTS a standard should have some control over its usage. |> |> But if companies want to use the Apple standard, then they should |> license it from Apple. | |Ah, but did Apple license is from Xerox?? Did Xerox abandon their invention |of the interface that the Mac uses?? Apple *did* license it from Xerox. The exact amount they paid and the terms of the license are beyond me, but there was an agreement between them. Apple may or may not have a good case, but they licensed the original and spent quite a lot making it even better. jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (Phil Ritzenthaler) (04/13/88)
In article <10378@steinmetz.ge.com>, vita@sungoddess.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) writes: > . . . The reason they are annoyed > is that Apple is not letting them use Apple-invented technology on > their non-Apple equipment. No, No, NO!! Apple did NOT invent the technology, Xerox did! Now, did Xerox license it to Apple?? Nobody seems to know . . . If not, how about HP, MS, and IBM go to Xerox and license/buy the rights from them. Then they can turn around and sue Apple for infringement . . . Oh boy, Oh boy, I love a fight . . . -- Phil Ritzenthaler UUCP :.!cbosgd!osu-cis!bgsuvax!ritzenth ARPA : ritzenth@andy.bgsu.edu "Remember, OPRAH spelled backwards is HARPO (toot-toot)!" -- Anonymous
lalonde@nicmad.UUCP (John Lalonde) (04/14/88)
In article <21571@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: > >Apple *did* license it from Xerox. The exact amount they paid and the >terms of the license are beyond me, but there was an agreement between >them. > >Apple may or may not have a good case, but they licensed the original >and spent quite a lot making it even better. According to news reports the *only* thing Apple licensed from Xerox was Smalltalk. A Xerox spokesperson indicated that *no* other licenses were granted to Apple. The news report concerning the Xerox spokesperson was in Electronic News about two weeks ago. It would be interesting if Apple has been intentionaly vague about their license with Xerox if it was only for Smalltalk. -- John LaLonde Systems Engineering Group Nicolet Instrument Corporation uucp: {ihnp4,rutgers,decvax,harvard}!uwvax!nicmad!lalonde
foobar@koko.UUCP (John Fruetel) (04/14/88)
In article <10378@steinmetz.ge.com> desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) writes: >jpple invested a lot of time, effort and creativity in coming up with >the Macintosh interface. At the time, there was nothing else like it >in the microcomputer market, and there was a significant amount of >risk involved in introducing a machine with such an interface. And in >fact, when it was introduced, it was roundly ridiculed by most of the >mainstream (i.e. MS-DOS) community (the "real men don't use icons" >attitude.) Now that the Macintosh interface has become successful, >Apple expects some payoff for having expended the effort and taking >the risk (rightfully so, in my opinion). The Macintosh interface >represents a significant competitive advantage for Apple over other PC >manufacturers. In fact, it can be argued that the interface is the >only real distinguishing characteristic of Apple's Macintosh line over >competing machines. > >I don't think it should be surprising, then, that Apple should use >whatever means at its disposal to try to maintain this competitive >advantage. If they don't, they're digging their own grave. > As we all know, Apple was originally a technology driven company. It was just a couple of guys having a good time designing hardware. After the Mac was introduced, Apple seemed to transform into a strictly market driven company. What happened? Apple has been enjoying it's "hacker" image for years, an image that I've feel that it doesn't deserve. If nothing else, this stupid lawsuit will end that image now and forever. Even though Apple may have some legal grounds (although it seems shaky after reading the Apple/Microsoft agreement), they are certainly not following industry practices. Visicorp essentially invented the electronic spreadsheet. As far as I know, they didn't sue everyone who later introduced an electronic spreadsheet. Wordstar was one of the pioneers in microcomputer word processing. They didn't bring up lawsuits against other companies that had word processors. Why does Apple think that they possess the right for all window-type operating systems? They didn't even invent the concept although they did popularize it. If Visicorp and Micropro had the same attitude that Apple seems to have, we would all be stuck with Visicalc and wordstar as are only spreadsheet and word processor choices. For the first time in my computing career, I'm rooting for IBM as the underdog. Although IBM wasn't specifically mentioned in the suit, Apple *must* have had the Presentation Manager (which is based on Windows 2.0) in mind. As you say, the Mac's (only) advantage over PC's is the windowing environment. IBM is moving to "fix" this problem. Once they do, Apple will no longer hold the monopoly on "user friendly" interfaces. Unless Apple seriously enhances their OS, it could be curtains for the Mac. So, I don't blame them for wanting to maintain a competitive edge. But why couldn't they have enhanced Finder and Multifinder? And why, oh why, won't they put a reasonable price tags on their machines? This would CERTAINLY give them a better edge than they have now. >You mention that the Apple suit is bugging a lot of people. Well, >first of all, let me point out that the people being "bugged" are, for >the most part, owners of MS-DOS machines. The reason they are annoyed (I've heard mucho complaints from Mac owners.) >is that Apple is not letting them use Apple-invented technology on >their non-Apple equipment. Well, the answer to this, however asinine >it may sound, is that if you want to benefit from this Apple-invented >technology, you should buy Apple equipment. > What Apple invented technology? You mean XEROX invented technology, don't you? Even though Apple may have enhanced the concept (possibly with Microsoft's programmers, no less), I feel that Windows 2.0 is an improvement over Finder. It allows multitasking, particularly Windows/386, and it's process based instead of file based. It's also a little nicer to people who don't care for mice. So I feel that Microsoft HAS come up with a better interface than Apple and that it is not simply a Finder rip-off. >---- >Mark Vita ARPA: vita@ge-crd.ARPA >General Electric Company UUCP: vita@desdemona.steinmetz.UUCP >Corporate R & D vita@desdemona.steinmetz.ge.com >Schenectady, NY desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP bcnu j fruetel * The opinions expressed here are John Fruetel * * my own, etc., etc., etc.. Valley Fresh Foods, Inc. * * Turlock, CA * * ..uunet!lll-winken!csustan!foobar *
vita@falstaff.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) (04/14/88)
In article <1894@bgsuvax.UUCP> ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (Phil Ritzenthaler) writes: >In article <10378@steinmetz.ge.com>, vita@sungoddess.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) writes: >> . . . The reason they are annoyed >> is that Apple is not letting them use Apple-invented technology on >> their non-Apple equipment. > >No, No, NO!! Apple did NOT invent the technology, Xerox did! Yes, yes, yes. Apple did invent *the Macintosh interface*. It is significantly different from the Xerox interface, though it is based on Xerox-invented concepts. It contains many user-interface techniques that were invented at Apple, not at Xerox. There's a difference between a derivation (i.e., Xerox->Apple or Xerox->Sun) and a more or less straight copy (i.e. Apple->Windows). I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple is not claiming a monopoly on Xerox PARC-style interfaces. It is trying to prevent unauthorized duplication of its own particular derivation of the Xerox interface. They are not suing people who have PARC-style interfaces which are different from the Macintosh interface. >Now, did Xerox >license it to Apple?? Nobody seems to know . . . Apple claims to have "broad licensing agreements" with Xerox. Xerox disputes this, saying the license was limited to Smalltalk. >If not, how about HP, MS, and IBM go to Xerox and license/buy the rights from >them. Then they can turn around and sue Apple for infringement . . . The real question is: does the 1985 agreement between Apple and Microsoft grant Microsoft rights to use the Macintosh interface? To me, it looks like it DOES. This could be Apple's biggest problem as far as the suit goes. The agreement is somewhat vaguely worded, and from what I've read, vagueness in a written agreement is interpreted by the courts to detriment of the drafter; in this case, Apple. Note that in this same licensing agreement, Microsoft acknowledges that Windows is indeed based in the Macintosh interface. I quote from the agreement: "...Microsoft acknowledges that the visual displays in the above-listed Microsoft programs are derivative works of the visual displays generated by Apple's Lisa and Macintosh graphic user interface programs." What doesn't seem to make sense is that Apple would sign an agreement which appears to basically give away the candy store. But the story I heard was that the agreement was signed somewhat "under duress". In 1985, Apple was struggling, the Mac was not selling well, and about the only software keeping the Mac alive were the packages from Microsoft. Supposedly Bill Gates threatened that if Apple did not sign such an agreement, Microsoft would pull its Mac software off the market. So Apple signed. Pretty cheesy deal, if you ask me. Of course, nowadays, Microsoft could not afford to kill its Mac products, since so much of their revenue now comes from the Mac market, and companies like Ashton-Tate are mounting a serious challenge to Microsoft's dominance in the Mac marketplace. >Oh boy, Oh boy, I love a fight . . . Yeah, me too. >Phil Ritzenthaler UUCP :.!cbosgd!osu-cis!bgsuvax!ritzenth > ARPA : ritzenth@andy.bgsu.edu ---- Mark Vita ARPA: vita@ge-crd.ARPA General Electric Company UUCP: vita@desdemona.steinmetz.UUCP Corporate R & D vita@desdemona.steinmetz.ge.com Schenectady, NY desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP
jdia@cs.rochester.edu (Josh Diamond) (04/16/88)
In article <1779@uoregon.UUCP> jqj@drizzle.UUCP (JQ Johnson) writes: >Personally, I would prefer to see a standardized user interface (i.e. >with the SAME "look and feel") available for all the machines my >users are likely to touch. There already is one. It's called X-Windows. Thank you, and good day... Spidey!!! -- /\ Josh /\ <<<---- THIS HAS BEEN A MESSAGE FROM SPIDEY AND THE SPIDEY TEAM //\\ .. //\\ Beauty is the purgation | Current SPIDEY TEAM headquarters: //\(( ))/\\ of superfluities. | jdia@cs.rochester.edu / < `' > \ -- Michaelangelo | ...{rutgers,cmcl2,decvax}!rochester!jdia
jqj@uoregon.UUCP (JQ Johnson) (04/16/88)
In article <10420@steinmetz.ge.com> desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) writes: > There's a >difference between a derivation (i.e., Xerox->Apple or Xerox->Sun) and >a more or less straight copy (i.e. Apple->Windows). Despite the 1985 agreement, this may be disputed, especially for New Wave. In the 1985 agreement Microsoft acknowledged that parts of Windows 1.0 are a derivative work. What we have here is a dispute over how much the derivative of the derivative work is derivative. Personally, I find Windows 2.0 as different from the Mac as it is from the Xerox ViewPoint interface.
benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (04/17/88)
In article <8690@sol.ARPA>, jdia@cs.rochester.edu (Josh Diamond) writes: > In article <1779@uoregon.UUCP> jqj@drizzle.UUCP (JQ Johnson) writes: > >Personally, I would prefer to see a standardized user interface (i.e. > >with the SAME "look and feel") available for all the machines my > >users are likely to touch. > There already is one. It's called X-Windows. No. X is the road one might take toward implementing a standardized user interface. You are confusing the brick and mortar with the building. Both X and NeWS provide the brick and mortar. A standardized user interface is the MacOS, GEM, New Wave and most recently the "Open Look". AT&T/Sun/Xerox ( and I believe a number of other vendors had inputs) have just finished announcing a standardized user interface for Unix System V Release 4.0 . The Open Look interface will be built on top of two different tool kits (X and NeWS) and will have a distinctive look and feel. ------------------------------ My Opinions are my own.
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (04/17/88)
Hi, Winodws 386, which contains as a subunit, Windows 2.03 (one types just "win" to get 2.03, while "win386" get '386). The above software is running on the PS/2-80 where I am typing at this very instant, using the Windows terminal emulator, in fact. I was surprised when I first heard of Apple's suit, since operationally, Windows is very, very different from the Macintosh interface (yes, I've used them both). What upsets me is that the "evidence" photos are pretty well doctored-up -- at least so it would seem by what comes up on my screen when I run windows. The default icons don't look anything like the icons on the Macintosh and the way that windows are moved, sized, incon-ized, etc. happens much differently than it does on the Macintosh. It would seem that the only leg that Apple has to stand on is the visual similarity of the doctored photos. Note that the photos I've seen in Infoworld and PC Week really do cheat since apple was careful to photograph the color display of Windows on black & white film to make sure that it would look more Macintosh-like. I think that if Apple really thinks it can win, that it must be hoping that a jury of computer neophytes will believe that the two products have substantial visual similarity based on the photos, and probably the screens of computers that are dragged into court to show off the programs. My test would be to sit a random citizen down in a room with a screen, keyboard and mouse for a PC and a Mac sitting on a table and have the person try it out. Finally, ask the citizen if it feels that the two displays are made by the same type of machine. I'd bet that most people would say, "no". It really would appear that Apple is just using IBM's F.U.D. (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) to keep its developers from abandoning ship for what could be the potentially more lucrative IBM market. By throwing some uncertainly on the introduction date of Presentation Manager, developers are going to have to be pragmatic and continue writing for the environment where they are assured of getting sales (i.e. the Mac). I'd be a little nervous about writing for the OS/2 and/or windows environment right now -- especially if all my former efforts had been in the Mac arena. --Bill
ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (Phil Ritzenthaler) (04/19/88)
What I can't understand is:
Why is Apple only suing Microsoft and HP?
There seems to be many others out there like SUN windous . . .
Or did MS and HP just seem ripe for the pickin'??
--
Phil Ritzenthaler UUCP :.!cbosgd!osu-cis!bgsuvax!ritzenth
ARPA : ritzenth@andy.bgsu.edu
"Remember, OPRAH spelled backwards is HARPO (toot-toot)!" -- Anonymousschwartz@gondor.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) (04/19/88)
In article <1925@bgsuvax.UUCP> ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (Phil Ritzenthaler) writes: >What I can't understand is: >Why is Apple only suing Microsoft and HP? >There seems to be many others out there like SUN windous . . . No chance. Sunview is very unlike the mac interface. (No title bars, no pulldowns, etc.) Also, Sun has agreements with Xerox (posted to comp.windows.misc, recently, I think) covering their use of the Xerox style popups, etc, particularly in the context of the New Look interface (which is more Mac-like than Sunview.) >Or did MS and HP just seem ripe for the pickin'?? There has been endless speculation over this, but the consensus seems to be that this was the easiest set of targets for apple to gain some kind of marketing edge by attacking. They certainly wouldn't want to take on IBM :-) Also, there is the chance that they are getting back at Bill Gates for past hardball playing. #disclaimer "Hey, what do I know? This is usenet, remember!" -- Scott Schwartz schwartz@gondor.cs.psu.edu schwartz@psuvaxg.bitnet
vita@macbeth.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) (04/20/88)
In article <803@koko.UUCP> foobar@koko.UUCP (John Fruetel) writes: >[...] >Even though Apple may have some legal grounds (although it seems shaky >after reading the Apple/Microsoft agreement), they are certainly not >following industry practices. Visicorp essentially invented the >electronic spreadsheet. As far as I know, they didn't sue everyone >who later introduced an electronic spreadsheet. Actually, I believe they did sue at least one company. Shortly after Lotus filed suit against Paperback and Mosaic over their 1-2-3 clones, the original authors of Visicalc filed suit against Lotus. I haven't heard anything more about the case since then. >[...] Why does Apple think that >they possess the right for all window-type operating systems? *Sigh*. They don't. But they do think they possess the right for their own particular "window-type operating system", which they feel Microsoft and HP have illegally cloned. There's a big difference between claiming someone has copied the Macintosh interface and asserting that only Apple has the right to produce a graphical windowing system. Apple isn't claming to own the entire category of windowing software, but rather just one particular instantiation of such a system. Going back to the spreadsheet example, Lotus didn't sue everyone who was producing a spreadsheet program (for example, they did not sue Microsoft over Multiplan). They only sued companies producing programs that were intentional clones of 1-2-3. This doesn't mean that Lotus "thinks that they possess the right for all spreadsheets". >[...] >For the first time in my computing career, I'm rooting for IBM as the >underdog. >Although IBM wasn't specifically mentioned in the suit, Apple >*must* have had the Presentation Manager (which is based on Windows 2.0) >in mind. As you say, the Mac's (only) advantage over PC's is the windowing >environment. IBM is moving to "fix" this problem. Once they do, Apple >will no longer hold the monopoly on "user friendly" interfaces. Yeah, it's kind of sick how IBM leeches off the proven technology of other companies, eh? :^) >Unless >Apple seriously enhances their OS, it could be curtains for the Mac. So, >I don't blame them for wanting to maintain a competitive edge. But why >couldn't they have enhanced Finder and Multifinder? And why, oh why, >won't they put a reasonable price tags on their machines? This would >CERTAINLY give them a better edge than they have now. Yes, you're right, this would give them a better edge. And in fact, Apple is now in the process of doing exactly the things you describe. A Mac Plus, which used to cost upwards of $2500 a couple years ago, can now be had for under $1500. And they are supposedly in the process of doing a complete rewrite of the operating system, to allow such things as preemptive multitasking, etc. But of course, doing the things mentioned above and filing suit against Microsoft/HP aren't mutually exclusive. If rewriting their OS will give them a good edge, rewriting the OS *and* slowing the development of clones will give them an even better edge. >>You mention that the Apple suit is bugging a lot of people. Well, >>first of all, let me point out that the people being "bugged" are, for >>the most part, owners of MS-DOS machines. The reason they are annoyed > (I've heard mucho complaints from Mac owners.) >>is that Apple is not letting them use Apple-invented technology on >>their non-Apple equipment. Well, the answer to this, however asinine >>it may sound, is that if you want to benefit from this Apple-invented >>technology, you should buy Apple equipment. >> >What Apple invented technology? You mean XEROX invented technology, don't >you? *Sigh*, again. No, I do mean "Apple-invented technology". I say again: Xerox did not invent the Macintosh interface. (Though it is true that the Mac interface is based on many of the concepts developed by Xerox at PARC during the 70s.) Saying that Xerox invented the Mac interface is somewhat akin to saying that Henry Ford invented the Mustang. >Even though Apple may have enhanced the concept (possibly with >Microsoft's programmers, no less), I feel that Windows 2.0 is >an improvement over Finder. It allows multitasking, particularly >Windows/386, and it's process based instead of file based. I don't think that these are user interface issues. They have more to do with the underlying operating system, which is invisible to the average user, and which has nothing to do with the "look and feel" issue brought forth in Apple's lawsuit. >It's also >a little nicer to people who don't care for mice. So I feel that Microsoft >HAS come up with a better interface than Apple and that it is not simply >a Finder rip-off. Well, I guess we simply disagree here. I maintain that Microsoft intentionally copied the Macintosh interface. >bcnu j fruetel > >* The opinions expressed here are John Fruetel * >* my own, etc., etc., etc.. Valley Fresh Foods, Inc. * >* Turlock, CA * >* ..uunet!lll-winken!csustan!foobar * ---- Mark Vita ARPA: vita@ge-crd.ARPA General Electric Company UUCP: vita@desdemona.steinmetz.UUCP Corporate R & D vita@desdemona.steinmetz.ge.com Schenectady, NY desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP
doug@edson.UUCP (Doug Konrad) (04/21/88)
In article <10500@steinmetz.ge.com>, vita@macbeth.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) writes: > > *Sigh*, again. No, I do mean "Apple-invented technology". I say > again: Xerox did not invent the Macintosh interface. (Though it is > true that the Mac interface is based on many of the concepts developed > by Xerox at PARC during the 70s.) Saying that Xerox invented the Mac > interface is somewhat akin to saying that Henry Ford invented the > Mustang. > The Mustang wasn't invented, it was designed. From what was learned from Henry's original work. Ditto the mac interface and Xerox. Doug Konrad
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (04/21/88)
> Saying that Xerox invented the Mac > interface is somewhat akin to saying that Henry Ford invented the > Mustang. More like saying Ferrari invented the Datsun 240Z. Like the Datsun (AKA Nissan) Z series is a poor-mans Ferrari GTB lookalike, the Mac is a poor-mans Xerox Star lookalike. It's not identical, it's cheaper, it's possibly more reliable, but anyone saying it's got the power and handling of the original hasn't used the real thing or has a proprietary interest. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.
chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) (04/22/88)
In article <10500@steinmetz.ge.com>, vita@macbeth.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) writes: > >>You mention that the Apple suit is bugging a lot of people. Well, > >>first of all, let me point out that the people being "bugged" are, for > >>the most part, owners of MS-DOS machines. The reason they are annoyed > > (I've heard mucho complaints from Mac owners.) > >>is that Apple is not letting them use Apple-invented technology on > >>their non-Apple equipment. Well, the answer to this, however asinine > >>it may sound, is that if you want to benefit from this Apple-invented > >>technology, you should buy Apple equipment. > >> > >What Apple invented technology? You mean XEROX invented technology, don't > >you? > > *Sigh*, again. No, I do mean "Apple-invented technology". I say > again: Xerox did not invent the Macintosh interface. (Though it is [And apple did not invent the windows 1.04 or 2.03 or ... interface] > true that the Mac interface is based on many of the concepts developed > by Xerox at PARC during the 70s.) Saying that Xerox invented the Mac > interface is somewhat akin to saying that Henry Ford invented the > Mustang. And saying Apple invented what Microsoft is using is just more of the same. . . > >Even though Apple may have enhanced the concept (possibly with > >Microsoft's programmers, no less), I feel that Windows 2.0 is > >an improvement over Finder. It allows multitasking, particularly > >Windows/386, and it's process based instead of file based. > > I don't think that these are user interface issues. They have more to > do with the underlying operating system, which is invisible to the > average user, and which has nothing to do with the "look and feel" > issue brought forth in Apple's lawsuit. The whole issue is one of what does the user imply as features and the appearance of the software -- its look-and-feel. Only an idiot would be unable to notice that the clock stops when he loads another program: multitasing is not invisible to even the most naieve user. There was another rediculous discussion about this topic some time ago (to the effect that a significant number of people would not notice multitasking or would actively dislike it). And the ability to refer unambiguously to two instances on the screen seems to me to be quite obvious to the viewer of the screen too (unless he is looking at two carefully matched images in a court document!). It seems to me we have a group of people who don't like IBM upset because their Mac interface has not been improved on in several years, and the competition across the hall has now caught up (or passed them up). Legal barriers to someone producing an improvement to an existing product have existed for many years -- they are an evil of having an established, stable society -- and we periodically have to get rid of them if we don't want to stagnate. Revolutions (such as Apple seems to imply are the only legal way to advance) have generally had a bad name -- George Washington did pretty well, but the French and Russian ones went down in history as sort of painful events. From what I have seen of the Mac user interface, it is about as much like Windows as Visicalc was a windowed calculator I once saw (several years before Visicalc made the scene) -- and certainly more different than the differences between Visicalc and 1-2-3 (or even Multiplan)! In the technical world, organic semiconductors may yet displace silicon, and graphics interfaces may displace command lines, but today the work of the world is done mostly by IBM or Unix style command streams (batch files to the PC addicts) and with silicon or germanium (or diamond, SOS, gallium arsenide or whatever) devices. The most useful things and the ones that make our society thrive are the minor improvements that in sum change the world, not the ones that come full blown and complete (read Twain's book about the Yankee in King Arthur's court or Jean Gimpel's <The Medieval Machine> -- one gives you a gut feel of what happens, the other debunks the whole idea of revolutionary change). > >It's also > >a little nicer to people who don't care for mice. So I feel that Microsoft > >HAS come up with a better interface than Apple and that it is not simply > >a Finder rip-off. > > Well, I guess we simply disagree here. I maintain that Microsoft > intentionally copied the Macintosh interface. > > >bcnu j fruetel > Mark Vita ARPA: vita@ge-crd.ARPA I take it from your comment that we should then stop teaching people to program (or write books, or sing, or . . .). Since almost any new development built on education and previous work is done so deliberately (or the creator should NOT get a return on his investment if it were just a lucky stroke), this would apply to most achievements of the human race since, possibly, the wheel and fire. Charles Marslett chasm@killer.UUCP [a flagrant look-and-feel anarchist]
chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) (04/22/88)
Just in case anyone gets the idea my last posting is a flame, it's not! I am just the type to rant on forever when I am told to reinvent, and reinvent, and reinvent, and reinvent the same DAMN WHEEL. Not only is it busywork, and that's why I dropped out of college, but it is unethical or immoral (I can't remember the details of the definitions). God himself dried out the world and reused it after the flood. Who do we think we are to criticize that process. chasm@killer.UUCP (again)
amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) (04/26/88)
Without really passing judgement on the Apple/whomever lawsuit.. I was just thinking of some nice things I'd like to patent if I wanted to make a fortune in computers and electronics. I think I like the ON switch best. Any other get-rich quick schemes? Sorry if this has been covered.. but I NEVER read these Apple Lawsuit articles. -- amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu ...since 1963. disclaimer: These are MY opinions. You only WISH they were yours.
ugfailau@sunybcs.UUCP (Fai Lau) (04/26/88)
In article <127@edson.UUCP> doug@edson.UUCP (Doug Konrad) writes: >> >The Mustang wasn't invented, it was designed. From what was learned from >Henry's original work. Ditto the mac interface and Xerox. > With all the new tachnologies *invented* between the first Ford and now, all we learned from Ford that we applied to the Mustang are little more than the basic design of a box riding on four wheels (note that Ford himself did not invent most of the tachnologies that were required for his design to work, he simply arranged what was available to create a new machine.) Today's automobiles are the result of effort by many many inventors, designers, technicians, engineers, etc. It's just plain silly to say we built the Mustang by learning from Ford's "original" work. -- Fai Lau SUNY at Buffalo (The Arctic Wonderland) UU: ..{rutgers,ames}!sunybcs!ugfailau BI: ugfailau@sunybcs INT: ugfailau@joey.cs.buffalo.EDU
perry@apollo.uucp (Jim Perry) (04/27/88)
In article <10595@sunybcs.UUCP> ugfailau@sunybcs.UUCP (Fai Lau) writes: >In article <127@edson.UUCP> doug@edson.UUCP (Doug Konrad) writes: >>> >>The Mustang wasn't invented, it was designed. From what was learned from >>Henry's original work. Ditto the mac interface and Xerox. >> > With all the new tachnologies *invented* between the first Ford and >now, all we learned from Ford that we applied to the Mustang are little >more than the basic design of a box riding on four wheels (note that Ford >himself did not invent most of the tachnologies that were required for his >design to work, he simply arranged what was available to create a new >machine.) Today's automobiles are the result of effort by many many >inventors, designers, technicians, engineers, etc. It's just plain silly >to say we built the Mustang by learning from Ford's "original" work. > This somewhat strained analogy has gone so far that I'm surprised (well, not really, this is Usenet: who needs facts) that nobody's pointed out the basic flaw: Henry Ford did not invent the automobile. He is credited with developing the assembly line process, which made large scale commercial production of automobiles possible.
djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (04/28/88)
I used to believe there was a moral justification for patents and copyrights: to protect the intellectual property of the people who invent things which we would otherwise not have. No more. Most all the clever inventions are practically inevitable. There was a cliche in the seventies, "It's an idea whose time has come." That about sums it up. It was the popular author/lecturer/T.V. personality James Burke who turned my thinking around on this topic. But I still like the idea of patents and copyrights. (Sorry, Mr. Stallman.) The rationale is to make new technology *more* available, not to restrict it. Patents and copyrights serve this purpose in two ways: 1. They give incentive to new development, by increasing the likelyhood that the developer's efforts will be rewarded; 2. They make new technologies publicly available, through the Patent Office. If the courts would listen to me (fat chance), I would advise them to grant or deny claims according to the answer to this question: Will this ruling, as a precedent, tend to increase, or will it tend to restrict, the general availability of new products and technology? This question must be considered in light of consideration (1) above: If the courts systematicly deny patent and software copyright claims to those who have acted in good faith, in the expectation of gain for having done useful work, or for having had an original idea, wouldbe developers will lose interest. There are other desiderata, of course. You don't want to grant patents to those who have only been the first to do the obvious. Or to grant patents whose value is vastly out of proportion to the amount of work done and to quality of insight which was required of the inventor. We want to reward cleverness and industry, not opportunism and sneakiness. And we don't want to impair standardization unduly. I will leave you to decide how my hypothetically instructed jurist would rule on the Apple case. I've got my opinion, but I'm not at all sure that I'm right. (I wonder if this is the first time that sentence has ever appeared on the net. Don't worry. I won't try to copyright it. ) Dave J.
rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.) (04/28/88)
in article <10595@sunybcs.UUCP>, ugfailau@sunybcs.UUCP (Fai Lau) says: > > (note that Ford > himself did not invent most of the tachnologies that were required for his > design to work, he simply arranged what was available to create a new > machine.) At risk of injecting a little accuracy into this otherwise amusing thread, Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry by "inventing" a) any true "automobile technology" b) methods of "look and feel". What Henry Ford did was adapt the automobile that existed at his time [and had been for quite some time before him] into a series of assembly steps and procedures, by virtue of which his atobmobile was very box shaped and could be produced in mass quantity. If that had been patentable then there would be no other car companies, now would there? Henry Ford *invented* the "assembly line" and the design constraints with which one can further design the product to be assembeled. c.f. "You can get it in any color you want... as long as it's black" H. Ford. If you look into legal history you will discover that Ford Motor Corp _NEVER_ sued anybody else who used the assembly line concept; and we know how many companies use that don't we.
erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (05/15/88)
In article <486@goofy.megatest.UUCP>, djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: > I used to believe there was a moral justification for patents and > copyrights: to protect the intellectual property of the people who > invent things which we would otherwise not have. There is. The problem is, Apple was allowed to concept something that shouldn't be allowed a copyright: a *class* or *style*. Bear with me.. If I wrote a game using aliens flying from the top of the screen to the bottom, and you must shoot at them from the bottom, and tried to copyright that part of the game, I would be laughed at. I could, however, copyright my code, and possibly the designs I used (if they weren't in the public domain). Apple has copyrighted -- unfortunately, with little or no oppostion -- something larger. The idea of a "trash can" for an icon associated with "delete this stuff" being copyrighted is ludicrous. The fact they copyrighted this in the first place is silly. If they wanted to copyright the way the trashcan looked, or their style of trashcan, that would be a different matter. Copyrights aren't allowed for say, "command line prompts". Anyone trying to copyright the use of "a character of symbol to designate that the system is ready to accept a new command" would be laughed at publicly (at least I hope they would be :-). Again, copyrights are a very *good* thing, but like most things, they can be misused. Same with patents. Imagine if Henry Ford got the patent for "any vehicle using two or more tires to suspend a chassis from the ground, and having an engine to propell it". :-) I feel that this is what Apple was allowed with it's copyrights on all the goofy stuff... -- Know Future Another journalist with too many spare MIPS. J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (05/18/88)
In article <640@flatline.UUCP>, I write: > The problem is, Apple was allowed to concept something that shouldn't > be allowed a copyright: a *class* or *style*. Bear with me.. Oops. Should've been "allowed to copyright something" instead of "allowed to concept something". The spellchecker doesn't complain about the wrong word, spelled correctly and in the right place. For those of you that find it "an insult" for a journalist to make a wrong-word error... When was the last time you wrote code/designed something/wrote something that had a small mistake that didn't affect the overall work? Let they who write perfectly be the editors of the rest. Distribute :-)'s as needed... -- Know Future Another journalist with too many spare MIPS. J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
David_Yoshio_Macias@cup.portal.com (05/31/88)
> Wouldn't that just be a shame (if Apple won..). The other companies would > have > to come up with their own ideas. Given that Apple did take the concept from > Xerox, they developed it far beyond anything Xerox did. If the other > companies > want to take the same ideas that Apple started with, I don't think there > would > be a problem.. It's that they want to take Apple's ideas straight across. > > tgm > crash!xroads!tgm > -- > \ / C r o s s r o a d s C o m m u n i c a t i o n s > \/ (602) 971-2240 > /\ (602) 992-5007 300|1200 Baud 24 hrs/day > / \ ihnp4!crash!xroads!* I think a point mentioned earlier was that Microsoft, while definitely borrowing some ideas from Xerox, Apple, et al, actually did extend and modify the Mac interface, much like Apple did to the Xerox interface it borrowed from. Once again, what's wrong with a little competition? Roy Bixler ...!sun.portal.cup.com!david_yoshio_macias P.S. I have nothing to do with Portal, except that me and my friend Dave pay them for Usenet access.
landay@cory.Berkeley.EDU (James A. Landay) (06/08/88)
In article <161@amcad.UUCP> lance@amcad.UUCP (Lance Antrim) writes: >I have been switching between a Mac Plus and a Unisys PC-microIT running >under windows 2.03. I have never had to refer to the Windows manual >(except to learn about PIFedit) because it is such a close >implementation of the Mac interface. (opinion on how lawsuit should be settled ommitted) >_____________________________________________________________________ >Lance N. Antrim >Program on the Processes UUCP: husc6!amcad!lance >of International Negotiation ARPA: lantrim@sloan.mit.edu The whole IDEA behind this kind of interface is that you do NOT need to refer to a manual. I have never needed to refer to a manual to operate a Mac or any other machine running an easy to use mouse-windowing interface. James A. Landay ARPA: landay@cory.berkeley.edu ucbvax!cory!landay
il@csri.toronto.edu (Indra Laksono) (06/10/88)
Next thing you know, you'll flip open a magazine and find: FAMOUS COMPUTER COMPANY SUES THE CHURCH claims use of "fruit from forbidden tree" a violation of copyright. [xxx] company spokesman claims that not only is the use of said fruit a flagrant violation of company's "look and feel" policy, there is a further factor of "taste" involved, so the issue now is : "look feel and taste". The company seeks a court injunction to ban further distribution of the bible "until the churches revise the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament". When pointed out that the Book of Genesis was out quite some time before the company's first computer, the spokesman says, "Look, we have copyright and that's it, if their lawyers are as smart as ours, they would have filed for patent a long time ago". SPREADSHEET COMPANY SUES SESAME STREET. "use of x x x 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 illegal" etc etc. The above articles are entirely fictional, any resemblance to any institution is a remarkably mind-boggling coincidence. -- ........................................... ` |- Indra Laksono ---- ---, University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 `' | ........................................... ------ ---' il@csri.toronto.edu, il@csri.toronto.cdn ,---. |