rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) (03/27/88)
If DRI, Microsoft, etc. were guilty of infringement because they used such things as menus, trashcans, and other such devices, then Apple is equally guilty on at least one count. The "zoom box," which causes a window to fill the screen, first appeared in GEM. (Be sure to add this to the list of "firsts" in comp.windows.misc.) <rogue>
dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) (03/29/88)
In article <5541@well.UUCP> rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) writes: >If DRI, Microsoft, etc. were guilty of infringement because they used >such things as menus, trashcans, and other such devices, then Apple is >equally guilty on at least one count. The "zoom box," which causes a >window to fill the screen, first appeared in GEM. (Be sure to add this to >the list of "firsts" in comp.windows.misc.) > ><rogue> The above comment is absurd -- The 'zoom box' has been used in various windowing environments for years, and predates GEM by at least four or five. I've used pre-GEM windowing workstations that not only had zoom boxes, but could either scale or clip the window, depending on the application and the user's desires. When it comes right down to it, GEM is a poor example of a general windowing system. It is, however, what we have on the ST, and what we must use. Not only have I seen and used better, I've designed and written better. (No, I won't say where or on what product or who I did it for, but I did it before the introduction of the ST or GEM.) -- Daniel A. Glasser dag@chinet.UUCP One of those things that goes "BUMP!!! (ouch!)" in the night. ...!att-ih!chinet!dag | ...!ihnp4!mwc!dag | ...!ihnp4!mwc!gorgon!dag
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*.
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