ramsdell@linus.mitre.org (John D. Ramsdell) (10/17/90)
Lotus is trying to make it illegal to write software even partially compatible in its behavior with existing software. If you write a program that does a simular job, they will sue you. This is not a negligible threat; Lotus has already won such a lawsuit. In response to this threat, it is in our best interest to boycott Lotus, or those organizations that support Lotus. In this case, I urge you to refuse to buy a 68040 upgrade board (N7003) for you 68030 based cube until NeXT unbundles Lotus Improv. Take a stand for compatible interfaces! John D. Ramsdell P.S. To the best of my knowledge, The MITRE Corporation does not have a policy on interface copyright, so the opinions expressed within do not represent the official policy of the company.
smithw@hamblin.math.byu.edu (William V. Smith) (10/17/90)
In article <9209@helios.TAMU.EDU> Chuck writes: >In article <123553@linus.mitre.org> ramsdell@mitre.org writes: >>I urge you to refuse to buy a 68040 upgrade board (N7003) for you 68030 >>based cube until NeXT unbundles Lotus Improv. Take a stand for >>compatible interfaces! >> >Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that IMPROV is NOT bundled >in with the new system 2.0. I believe that the deal is that if you've >bought a new NeXT you can then send in to Lotus and receive back a >copy of IMPROV. The IMPROV deal is, as far as I know, offered only >to those who purchase a new machine and is not extended to those who >are upgrading their motherboard to an '040. Do what you want about this boycott thing I suppose but it is a fact that IMPROV *IS* included with the 68040 upgrade if this upgrade is purchased before the end of the year. -Bill-
cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Chuck Herrick) (10/17/90)
In article <123553@linus.mitre.org> ramsdell@mitre.org writes: >I urge you to refuse to buy a 68040 upgrade board (N7003) for you 68030 >based cube until NeXT unbundles Lotus Improv. Take a stand for >compatible interfaces! > Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that IMPROV is NOT bundled in with the new system 2.0. I believe that the deal is that if you've bought a new NeXT you can then send in to Lotus and receive back a copy of IMPROV. The IMPROV deal is, as far as I know, offered only to those who purchase a new machine and is not extended to those who are upgrading their motherboard to an '040. -- Chuck Herrick cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (10/17/90)
In <9209@helios.TAMU.EDU> cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Chuck Herrick) writes: >Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that IMPROV is NOT bundled >in with the new system 2.0. I believe that the deal is that if you've Correct. >bought a new NeXT you can then send in to Lotus and receive back a >copy of IMPROV. The IMPROV deal is, as far as I know, offered only >to those who purchase a new machine and is not extended to those who >are upgrading their motherboard to an '040. This is wrong. It's available to both new machine and upgrade purchases from now until Dec 31, 90. You have to be willing to accept delivery of the machine by Dec 31 (if you can/could get it). If you want to buy a machine, but not accept it until next year sometime, no go. At least that's what the guy I talked to said. -k
herndon@sctc.com (William R. Herndon) (10/17/90)
ramsdell@linus.mitre.org (John D. Ramsdell) writes: . . . >In response to this threat, it is in our best interest to boycott >Lotus, or those organizations that support Lotus. In this case, I >urge you to refuse to buy a 68040 upgrade board (N7003) for you 68030 >based cube until NeXT unbundles Lotus Improv. Take a stand for >compatible interfaces! >John D. Ramsdell Lotus Improv is not being "bundled" with the upgrade or any other release of 2.0 software from NeXT. To get Improv, people who buy NeXT computers or upgrade to 2.0 before December 31st of this year will be allowed to obtain Improv for free by registering their machines with NeXT and sending in a special card requesting Improv. Don't delay your upgrade!! If you feel strongly about this, then just don't request Improv. - Max ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- William R. Herndon Secure Computing Technology Corp. The opinions expressed are mine, ALL MINE! HEH, HEH, herndon@sctc.com HEH, HEH!!! (612) 482-7431
dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas F. DeJulio) (10/17/90)
ramsdell@linus.mitre.org (John D. Ramsdell) writes: > In response to this threat, it is in our best interest to boycott > Lotus, or those organizations that support Lotus. In this case, I > urge you to refuse to buy a 68040 upgrade board (N7003) for you 68030 > based cube until NeXT unbundles Lotus Improv. Take a stand for > compatible interfaces! Wouldn't it make more of a statement if you bought the 040 upgrade while Improv was still bundled, and then shipped your copy of Improv back to Lotus with a detailed explanation of why you're doing so? I just ordered a Slab, and I'm planning on doing something like this if I get Improv bundled with it. -- Doug DeJulio dd26@andrew.cmu.edu
jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (10/17/90)
In article <123553@linus.mitre.org>, ramsdell@linus.mitre.org (John D. Ramsdell) writes: |>Lotus is trying to make it illegal to write software even partially |>compatible in its behavior with existing software. If you write a |>program that does a simular job, they will sue you. This is not a |>negligible threat; Lotus has already won such a lawsuit. |> I'm not fond of Lotus and don't like these silly "Look and Feel" law suites, but this is very much of an overstatement. The law suite Lotus won was against someone who built a spreadsheet that was an exact match of Lotus, down the the indivisual keystrokes you used to invoke actions. I don't think they should have even won this, but this is certainly not suing everyone who makes somethat that is "even partially compatible in its behaviour with existing software." Jim Mann Stratus Computer jmann@es.stratus.com
madler@piglet.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) (10/18/90)
>> Take a stand for compatible interfaces!
Oh, great. Now I'll feel guilty when I send in my Improv coupon from
my 040 upgrade. My friends will see the Lotus logo on my dock and say
"Hmmm. Supporting that dolphin-killing kind of software, are we?"
I guess boycotting the tuna worked, but I tend to think the problem with
the software is more in the laws and not in the publicly held companies.
Patent and copyright laws were not written with software in mind. Maybe
we should write to our congressmen? When was the last time you did that?
Mark Adler
madler@piglet.caltech.edumoose@svc.portal.com (10/18/90)
In article <123553@linus.mitre.org> ramsdell@mitre.org writes: >Lotus is trying to make it illegal to write software even partially >compatible in its behavior with existing software. If you write a >program that does a simular job, they will sue you. This is not a >negligible threat; Lotus has already won such a lawsuit. > >In response to this threat, it is in our best interest to boycott >Lotus, or those organizations that support Lotus. In this case, I >urge you to refuse to buy a 68040 upgrade board (N7003) for you 68030 >based cube until NeXT unbundles Lotus Improv. Take a stand for >compatible interfaces! > >John D. Ramsdell > I am publically telling you to go away and leave us alone. Lotus has won no such lawsuit. They won a lawsuit against a company that claimed to be a Lotus clone for half the price. Paperback went out of their way to make their product look identical to Lotus and said as much. All of this is irrelevant. NeXT is not bundling Improv. Lotus is giving it away to everyone that gets an '040 NeXT. It's a promotional by Lotus, not NeXT. Therefore, punishing NeXT is not going to further your aims, whatever they might be. In a nutshell, you are a nut. Take it somewhere else and leave it there. -- Michael Rutman | moose@svc.portal.com Cubist | makes me a NeXT programmer Software Ventures | That's in Berkeley smile, you're on standard disclaimer | <fill in with cute saying>
jpab+@andrew.cmu.edu (Josh N. Pritikin) (10/18/90)
>In response to this threat, it is in our best interest to boycott >Lotus, or those organizations that support Lotus. In this case, I >urge you to refuse to buy a 68040 upgrade board (N7003) for you 68030 >based cube until NeXT unbundles Lotus Improv. Take a stand for >compatible interfaces! I hope your joking. This is quite a bit to ask, plus, Improv looks cool. Surely we can find a better way to tell Lotus that we disapprove of its copywrite policy... ( Josh-Pritikin jpab+@andrew.cmu.edu ( X11: the power of a Mac with the user friendliness of Unix.
phd_ivo@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (10/18/90)
************* >All of this is irrelevant. NeXT is not bundling Improv. Lotus is giving it >away to everyone that gets an '040 NeXT. It's a promotional by Lotus, not >NeXT. Does this mean that you only get a promotional copy, i.e. a copy that will leave you in the cold when it comes to future upgrades? I certainly don't hope so, because NeXT is partially so attractive because it bundles one more $600 product. Incidentally, it won't hurt Lotus if you keep a free copy. If you want to boycott Lotus, boycott them where it hurts them; buy Borland next time... /ivo welch ivo@next.agsm.ucla.edu
a577@mindlink.UUCP (Curt Sampson) (10/18/90)
> dwallach@soda.Berkeley.EDU writes: > > Here's a good idea. Get Improv and clone it! With the interface builder, > that shouldn't be immensely painful. Maybe you could steal the guts of > Oleo (the GNU spreadsheet, I think) and perhaps even make a better one. > > If you feel so strongly, don't protest Lotus, provoke Lotus. > > If you release a similar or better product, especially for free, you could > simply drive Lotus out of the NeXT business! I've always thought that that would be a good way to "get back" at companies like Lotus and Apple. Just create a decent version of their product and put it into the public domain. Don't put your name on it, and they won't have anyone to sue. That would certainly be a frustrating experience for a company like that. cjs -- Curt_Sampson@mindlink.UUCP (Vancouver, B.C., Canada) {uunet|ubc-cs}!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!Curt_Sampson Data: (604) 687-6736 Curt_Sampson@p0.f740.n153.z1.fidonet.org Voice: (604) 687-3227
barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) (10/19/90)
In article <sb78=9u00VI8IK5IpP@andrew.cmu.edu> dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas F. DeJulio) writes: > >Wouldn't it make more of a statement if you bought the 040 upgrade >while Improv was still bundled, and then shipped your copy of Improv >back to Lotus Here's a question in a similar vein, but with a more base motivation: since I'll be getting several copies of Improv with my upgrades, can I resell them? (maybe raise the cash for a floppy drive...) -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
dwallach@soda.Berkeley.EDU (Dan Wallach) (10/19/90)
Here's a good idea. Get Improv and clone it! With the interface builder, that shouldn't be immensely painful. Maybe you could steal the guts of Oleo (the GNU spreadsheet, I think) and perhaps even make a better one. If you feel so strongly, don't protest Lotus, provoke Lotus. If you release a similar or better product, especially for free, you could simply drive Lotus out of the NeXT business! Dan
jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (10/19/90)
In article <1990Oct19.010258.29868@agate.berkeley.edu>, dwallach@soda.Berkeley.EDU (Dan Wallach) writes: |>If you release a similar or better product, especially for free, you could |>simply drive Lotus out of the NeXT business! Great! We get a product on the NeXT that should help to draw the business world to the machine and we have people who want to drive them out! Improv should help NeXT sell lots of machines. I'd like to see this happen. More machines will mean more people who want to write software for the machine and the effect snowballs, the way it did on the PC and the Mac. As for a free spreadsheet -- most business users (rightly or wrongly) don't want and don't trust free software. $400-500 bucks is peanuts for a Fortune 500 company. These companies would rather pay this to Lotus (and feel safe and secure) and not save some money but worry about what kind of support they are going to get on their software. (Yes, I know this isn't always the case. I use free software and shareware myself. I'm talking about your typical accountant type.) Jim Mann Stratus Computer jmann@es.stratus.com
cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Chuck Herrick) (10/20/90)
In article <2784@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: >As for a free spreadsheet -- most business users (rightly or wrongly) don't >want and don't trust free software. I think this is because free software is a non-traditional and relatively new solution. Given some loving attention and some time to mature and with a goal of simple installation, it's possible that FSF will become the traditional path for the average user, accountant or not. We need to create a reality where every place that has a phone is a node on the "humanet" (humanet supercedes the internet). A GNUspreadsheet would be a great step forward. Imagine if it were implemented under both NeXTstep and X. -- Chuck Herrick cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu
jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (10/22/90)
In article <tim.656458445@ggumby>, tim@ggumby.cs.caltech.edu (Timothy L. Kay) writes: |>a577@mindlink.UUCP (Curt Sampson) writes: |> |>>I've always thought that that would be a good way to "get back" at companies |>>like Lotus and Apple. Just create a decent version of their product and put it |>>into the public domain. Don't put your name on it, and they won't have anyone |>>to sue. That would certainly be a frustrating experience for a company like |>>that. |> |>Just take a copy of Improv and post it to the net. Don't |>put your name on it, and they won't have anyone to sue. That would |>certainly be a frustrating experience for a company like that. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if they were able to sue the maintainer of the site from which the post happened. Besides, despite the paranoia of some companies out there, most businesses won't use a bootleg copy of something, so posting a copy won't cut much into Lotus sales. Jim Mann Stratus Computer jmann@es.stratus.com
irv@happym.wa.com (Irving [h] Wolfe) (10/23/90)
In <1990Oct17.231522.17662@midway.uchicago.edu> phd_ivo@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >If you want to >boycott Lotus, boycott them where it hurts them; buy Borland next time... Anyone who would boycott the most creative and innovative major company in the American software scene is a genuine psychopath -- the kind who really would cut off his nose to spite his face. 1-2-3 is not being copied just because it's been successful (though perhaps that was a prerequisite) but mainly because it's much better than anything else that was out there until recently. Recently, the same company introduced the new king of the spreadsheet field: Improv. And we were lucky enough to have our choice of computer -- NeXT -- validated by the smartest, most honest company in the software business, Lotus! We get it first, and most of us get it free. I run a company. I wouldn't buy 1-2-3 or any other spreadsheet program and told the few users who absolutely had to have one that they had to use the public domain program sc. That was _not_ to save money! It was because of the faults of prior technology that Improv corrects. If we had to pay for Improv, we would. It sounds like the first spreadsheet that addresses some of the problems involved in letting non-programmers write programs in a "language" that can't readily be read by anyone for checking. The only way we had to verify our past spreadsheet programming was to repeat what the author knew the calculations to be totally by hand or, in more complicated cases, to have someone write a C program to do the same thing. Then, _if_ the answers matched, we could trust the spreadsheet. Somewhat. Anyone who would boycott Lotus or Improv is either not looking at what the company has done (inspired, no doubt, by the Creator) or, if he's looked, is truly nutso! -- Irving Wolfe Happy Man Corp. irv@happym.wa.com 206/463-9399 ext.101 4410 SW Point Robinson Road, Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399 fax ext.116 SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors Information free (sample $10 check or credit card): email patty@happym.wa.com
barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) (10/24/90)
In article <994@happym.wa.com> irv@happym.wa.com (Irving [h] Wolfe) writes: >In <1990Oct17.231522.17662@midway.uchicago.edu> phd_ivo@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > >Improv. And we were lucky enough to have our choice of computer -- NeXT -- >validated by the smartest, most honest company in the software business, >Lotus! We get it first, and most of us get it free. > If something seems to good to be true, then it probably is! So you have to ask yourself ``Gee, why would a PC company like lotus develop a Mega spreadsheet for NeXT? And then give it away for free, no less?'' My guess: I think that Improv is like a ``technology demo'' for Lotus. Just to show the world how smart they are, and what the future will hold. The only reason NeXT figured into things is that was the most convenient development platform for glitzy software. Its a lot like General Motors demoing experimental cars like SunRaycer, etc---it allows them to flex their engineering muscle, and is good publicity. It has little to do with their future marketing or development plans. Makes sense that big software companies would do similarly. So, don't get any ideas that Lotus is a big NeXT supporter. If they really wanted to _help NeXT_, they should port 1-2-3 to it! To most business users, that would be a bigger draw than Improv (no need to retrain, etc). (Disclaimer: yes, I'm overjoyed that they created Improv. But, we should be realistic about what it means for NeXT market penetration. After all, no one drives a SunRaycer, either.) -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
wisdom@pico.cs.umn.edu (Scott Wisdom) (10/24/90)
irv@happym.wa.com (Irving [h] Wolfe) writes: >1-2-3 is not being copied just because >it's been successful (though perhaps that was a prerequisite) but mainly >because it's much better than anything else that was out there until recently. The REAL reason 1-2-3 is being coppied is NOT because it's better than anything else (until recently) but beacause lots (and LOTS and LOTS) of people learned (with great difficulty) how to use it, and would rather not learn a new spreadsheet, even if it IS better. To most people, learning how to use this kind of program was not easy, and if they can get what they know for less, they will buy it. As time goes on, you will probably be amazed how many people refuse to use a 'new fangled' spreadsheet like IMPROV in favor of 'old faithful' 1-2-3... Scott Wisdom wisdom@heckle.cs.umn.edu <-- YO! send E-mail here Coda Music Software Hacker
glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) (10/27/90)
>If they really wanted to _help NeXT_, they should port 1-2-3 to it! >To most business users, that would be a bigger draw than Improv >(no need to retrain, etc). Improv *is* 1-2-3. It loads the files and runs the macros just fine. What are you talking about?
gcarter@globey.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) (10/31/90)
I think the key to the Lotus fiasco is the point that, we as software designers MUST use reusable materials to be able to economically produce software. You cannot do this within the copyright system. Its impossible. Either licensing fees will kill you or the legal fondu will surely make it impossible to make a profit. This is very serious. If you look at the history of software development, eveolutionary, incremental development is the key to advancing our science. May I remind you people that Mach wouldn't exist without Unix. I am still an undergrad, and I have been having second thoughts about writing software for money hungry grubbing people like Lotus or anyone else I may end up working for. I really hate reading about this kind of stuff and have been considering a degree in GARDENING instead of Computer Science. I want to write software, not reinvent the wheel, OR STUDY LAW. Gregory No fancy footer...JUST BLANK SPACE..besides improves thru-put...
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (10/31/90)
-------- In article <1990Oct31.012615.19372@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, gcarter@globey.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) writes... >I think the key to the Lotus fiasco is the point that, we as software >designers MUST use reusable materials to be able to economically produce >software. You cannot do this within the copyright system. Its impossible. >Either licensing fees will kill you or the legal fondu will surely make it >impossible to make a profit. > Then how is Next doing it? I mean, they've created something brand new, and no one's suing them for it (yes, Apple did sue Jobs years ago, but that had a lot to do with the fact that Jobs came from Apple and took people and knowledge with him). Regardless of Next's success, if your claim is that you have to use other people's copyrighted work to create new and useful products, then I would say that you may have difficulty in your software creation in the future. > >I am still an undergrad, and I have been having second thoughts about >writing software for money hungry grubbing people like Lotus or anyone else >I may end up working for. Or money hungry people like Apple. Or Next. Or the corner grocer. Ultimately everyone's after the money. Some companies may be "nicer" than others. But remember: Lotus is NOT suing all spreadsheet makers (they couldn't anyway), merely a product which sought to capitalize on Lotus' success by copying Lotus 123 exactly and billing it as a replacement for 123. If that troubles you, then I suggest that you are going to have difficulty in the business world. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
kh2v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Keith Hawkins) (11/06/90)
Can someone explain what all the fury is concerning Lotus Improv and the 040 upgrades to someone who has just got on the NeXT bandwagon. i.e. What sin has NeXT and/or Lotus committed? Just wondering. -Keith Hawkins [ "Fancy Footer" ] [ Space For Rent ] [ By Owner ]
mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse) (11/26/90)
In article <1990Oct31.020635.5916@midway.uchicago.edu>, gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > In article <1990Oct31.012615.19372@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, gcarter@globey.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) writes... >> I think the key to the Lotus fiasco is the point that, we as >> software designers MUST use reusable materials to be able to >> economically produce software. You cannot do this within the >> copyright system. Its impossible. Not quite. In the patent system it would be. Copyright mechanisms do not keep you from using independent-but-identical code (though you may have trouble proving it to be independent). >> Either licensing fees will kill you or the legal fondu will surely >> make it impossible to make a profit. > Regardless of Next's success, if your claim is that you have to use > other people's copyrighted work to create new and useful products, > then I would say that you may have difficulty in your software > creation in the future. Exactly. >> [...] money hungry grubbing people like Lotus [...] > Or money hungry people like Apple. Or Next. True. > Or the corner grocer. Invalid compaison. The grocer is selling material goods, not pure information. (What's the difference? If I give you an orange, I don't have it afterwards. If I give you a program, I do.) der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
lerman@stpstn.UUCP (Ken Lerman) (11/27/90)
In article <1990Nov26.022638.20419@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse) writes: ->In article <1990Oct31.020635.5916@midway.uchicago.edu>, gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: ->> In article <1990Oct31.012615.19372@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, gcarter@globey.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) writes... .................. ->> Or the corner grocer. -> ->Invalid compaison. The grocer is selling material goods, not pure ->information. (What's the difference? If I give you an orange, I don't ->have it afterwards. If I give you a program, I do.) -> -> der Mouse -> -> old: mcgill-vision!mouse -> new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu Aha, like the local hooker. What do you call someone who sells you something and still has it to sell to someone else? A consultant. :-) :-) Ken
jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (11/27/90)
In article <1990Nov26.022638.20419@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>, mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse) writes: |>Exactly. |> |>>> [...] money hungry grubbing people like Lotus [...] |>> Or money hungry people like Apple. Or Next. |> |>True. |> |>> Or the corner grocer. |> |>Invalid compaison. The grocer is selling material goods, not pure |>information. (What's the difference? If I give you an orange, I don't |>have it afterwards. If I give you a program, I do.) Based on that argument, if I buy a record or compact disk, I should then be able to make as many copies as a I want and give them to my friends. Or place copies in public places so anyone can do the same, thus saving them from having to actually pay for a copy. Or, if I were a musician myself, take any such recorded music and use it as a background or whatever in music I was making myself. After all, even after I bought the copy of the music, the composer, performer, and record company still have their original. Jim Mann Stratus Computer jim_mann@es.stratus.com
mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse) (11/30/90)
In article <3223@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>, jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: > In article <1990Nov26.022638.20419@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>, mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse) writes: [hmmm, a couple of attribution lines are missing here...] >>>> [...] money hungry grubbing people like Lotus [...] >>> Or money hungry people like [...] the corner grocer. >> Invalid compaison. The grocer is selling material goods, not pure >> information. (What's the difference? If I give you an orange, I >> don't have it afterwards. If I give you a program, I do.) > Based on that argument, if I buy a record or compact disk, I should > then be able to make as many copies as a I want and give them to my > friends. [etc] I was pointing out the invalidity of the analogy, not trying to argue either side of the question. (If you want my actual position on the matter, I'll be glad to correspond by mail.) der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu