murf@oakhill.UUCP (Steve Murphy) (06/21/89)
Sorry I'm posting here, but I couldn't find the relevant moderator in my
list for gnu.announce, to mail this to. I've noticed this sort of thing
flying thru this newsgroup before, to rms's dismay, I'd imagine, but....
well.... right or wrong, I did it, I'm sorry. This is not my employer's
opinion. Reprinted with permission from publisher.
I quote from Computer Design, News Edition, Page 1, 12 Jun 89 Vol 28, No 12,
author Tom Williams:
Stamford, CT: Xerox has settled a lawsuit with Metaphor Computer Systems
(Mountain Ciew, CA) over the use of what Xerox claims is its proprietary
graphical user interface. The interface technology in question is essentially
the same technology at the heart of a suit by Apple Computer (Cupertino,
CA) against Microsoft (Redmond, WA) and Hewlett-Packard (Palo Alto, CA).
Metaphor's lawsuit against Xerox, filed in April, asked the U.S. District Court
for protection from demands for licensing fees. With the settlement, Metaphor
has agreed to pay a fee to use the technology, and Xerox has offered to license
its user interface to any developer wishing to use it.
The settlement could throw cold water on Apple's claim that Microsoft's Windows
and HP's NewWave window-based user interfaces draw on technology developed for
the Macintosh. Both Microsoft and HP have argued that Apple's contention is
groundless because the basic technology was developed at Xerox.
Xerox holds a 1981 copyright for an early version of the interface, and several
key members of the development team from Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center
later joined Apple. But until the recent action with Metaphor, Xerox has dis-
played no interest in defending its rights to the interface. With the Metaphor
settlement, Microsoft and HP may now attempt to license the technology from
Xerox to strengthen their case against Apple.
Although the impact of the settlement remains unclear, it will undoubtedly
affect software-development costs throughout the industry. It will also
probably complicate an already complex issue. The common denominator for all
window-based graphical user interfaces is that they use windows, icons, and a
desktop metaphor to manipulate files, invoke programs, and perform other
interactions. Developers have expressed concern that any claim to the tech-
nology could extend beyond "look and feel" to the basic concept of the desk-
top metaphor.
--------------------
A very interesting development....
any thoughts?
--
murf: Steve Murphy, Motorola, Inc. <My postings are from me, not Motorola>
6501 William Cannon Drive West, MD OE37
Austin, TX 78735 (512)891-2276
<WORLD>!oakhill!murfrbj@DSYS.NCSL.NIST.GOV (Root Boy Jim) (06/21/89)
? From: oakhill!murf@cs.utexas.edu (Steve Murphy)
? Sorry I'm posting here...
Me too.
? The settlement could throw cold water on Apple's claim that
? Microsoft's Windows and HP's NewWave window-based user interfaces
? draw on technology developed for the Macintosh. Both Microsoft and
? HP have argued that Apple's contention is groundless because the
? basic technology was developed at Xerox.
That defense seems to indicate that L&F *can* be copyrighted, but
that Apple doesn't own the rights, Xerox does.
? Xerox holds a 1981 copyright for an early version of the interface,
? and several key members of the development team from Xerox's Palo
? Alto Research Center later joined Apple. But until the recent action
? with Metaphor, Xerox has dis- played no interest in defending its
? rights to the interface. With the Metaphor settlement, Microsoft and
? HP may now attempt to license the technology from Xerox to
? strengthen their case against Apple.
Likewise. Remember that SOP often sets legal precedent,
? A very interesting development....
? any thoughts?
Well, you *did* ask.
I would like to mention another viewpoint. The Standards Game. I find
it rather odd that at a time when the computer industry is standardizing
languages, operating systems, window systems, and network protocols
like never before, that this sort of chicanery is being pulled. The last
thing we need is gratuitous incompatibility when we are on the verge
of a relatively uniform environment.
NIST is very reluctant to enter legal battles, to avoid seeming
biased, but might be interested in the standards angle.
Richard, I would volunteer to do something here, but this is out of
my league. All I can suggest is that your lawyers contact NIST's
lawyers, and see if they are interested in submitting their own
Amicus Curiae brief. The main NIST number is (301) 975-2000.
Remember, the real competition is not between {IBM,DEC,Sun,AT&T,HP,etc},
it is between that set and {NEC,Fujitsu,Hitachi,etc}.
? murf: Steve Murphy, Motorola, Inc. <My postings are from me, not
? Motorola> 6501 William Cannon Drive West, MD OE37 Austin, TX 78735
? (512)891-2276 <WORLD>!oakhill!murf
Root Boy Jim is what I am
Are you what you are or what?bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (06/22/89)
Alas, an out-of-court settlement doesn't carry the same legal weight as a court decision.