mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (03/22/89)
For those of you who have not yet heard, the courts have ruled in favor of
Apple Computer in a summary judgement that was handed down today. Microsoft
had contended that Windows 2.03 was covered in the license agreement that was
signed by Apple and Microsoft in the past. Here is the press release that
Apple posted on their AppleLink network (so if it looks a little biased you'll
know why):
Apple Receives Favorable Ruling - Contract Issue/Microsoft
APPLE RECEIVES FAVORABLE RULING ON CONTRACT ISSUE;
COURT REJECTS MICROSOFT'S CLAIM THAT WINDOWS 2.03 IS LICENSED
Cupertino, California. March 21, 1989. Apple Computer, Inc. today announced
that the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, California has ruled that
Microsoft's Windows Version 2.03 is not licensed under a November 22, 1985
agreement between Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft had claimed that Windows
2.03 - a graphical user interface for IBM compatible personal computers - is
licensed under that agreement.
This ruling came in response to Apple's motion for partial summary judgment,
in which Apple claimed that Windows Version 2.03 was an unauthorized,
derivative work of Apple's copyrighted Macintosh(R) audio visual works.
"We're pleased by today's ruling, as it validates Apple's ongoing contention
that Windows 2.03 exceeded our 1985 agreement with Microsoft," said Albert A.
Eisenstat, Apple's senior vice president. "With this contract issue behind
us, we look forward to resolution of the remaining issues in the case."
Apple originally filed suit against Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard on
March 17, 1988 to protect its copyrighted Macintosh audio visual computer
displays against copyright infringement by two products: Microsoft's Windows
2.03 and Hewlett-Packard's NewWave. Apple's audio visual displays make the
Macintosh personal computer unique and distinctive, and, in computer parlance,
extremely "user friendly."
In May 1988, Microsoft requested that the case be bifurcated, or divided
into two parts, the first part of which was to determine the scope of the 1985
agreement. The two companies entered into the 1985 agreement to resolve a
dispute that had arisen at that time concerning the ownership of Macintosh
audio visual works and possible copyright infringement of those works by
Microsoft Windows Version 1.0.
Judge William W Schwarzer's decision today did not determine the issue
of copyright infringement, which will be resolved in a later phase of the
litigation. A status hearing has been scheduled for April 14, 1989 to
determine the schedule for resolution of the remaining issues in the case.
----------
It will be interesting to see what comes out of the second phase of the
hearings. Is Microsoft Windows too close to the Macintosh user interface?
Personally, I don't know myself. I can just imagine a bunch of lawyers
arguing about this (although it would probably be a more subjective argument
than the common argument on this network).
-Michael "I don't speak for anyone so leave me alone" Niehaus
--
Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)jln@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Jared Nedzel) (03/23/89)
In article <6271@bsu-cs.UUCP> mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: [stuff deleted] > >Judge William W Schwarzer's decision today did not determine the issue >of copyright infringement, which will be resolved in a later phase of the >litigation. A status hearing has been scheduled for April 14, 1989 to >determine the schedule for resolution of the remaining issues in the case. > >---------- > >It will be interesting to see what comes out of the second phase of the >hearings. Is Microsoft Windows too close to the Macintosh user interface? >Personally, I don't know myself. I can just imagine a bunch of lawyers >arguing about this (although it would probably be a more subjective argument >than the common argument on this network). > There's an important element that I think you may be missing here. I'm no lawyer, but I think that before the court can rule that MS infringed on Apple's copyright, they have to rule whether or not Apple's copyright is valid in the first place. As you probably know, Apple's interface is remarkably similar to work done at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). If I'm not mistaken, the concept of windows and icons was first developed at PARC. (I played with a Xerox Alto in 1980 - mouse, windows, graphic wordprocessor, draw program, ethernet connection to a *real* laser printer (Xerox 9700 -- 120 ppm!)) I think that the mouse was first developed by Doug Englebart (sp?) at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in the mid-late '60s. So, perhaps question number 1 is: can these concepts be copyrighted? If they can be copyrighted, question number 2 is: who owns the copyrights? Now don't get me wrong. I love the Mac (I'm writing this on one). The interface is great. IMHO, it's much better than MS Windows. I've done some programming in MS Windows, just enough (200 pages of C code) to say no thank you if anyone asks me to do anymore: IMHO the development tools suck. Nevertheless, I think that Apple's suit is bad for the industry. If they win it, I hope that Xerox has its lawyers warming up in the bullpen to sue the pants off Apple. -- Jared L. Nedzel --------------------------------------------------------------------- e-mail: nedzel@cive.stanford.edu Disclaimer: Don't believe anything I say -- I sure don't
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/23/89)
>>It will be interesting to see what comes out of the second phase of the >>hearings. Is Microsoft Windows too close to the Macintosh user interface? >There's an important element that I think you may be missing here. I'm no >lawyer, but I think that before the court can rule that MS infringed on Apple's >copyright, they have to rule whether or not Apple's copyright is valid in >the first place. From what I've read (and I'm no expert on the case, that's for sure), all the initial ruling stated was that the new release of Windows wasn't covered by the agreement between Apple and Microsoft. If the judge had ruled in favor of Microsoft here, there would have been no case, since Windows would have then been licensed. Since this ruling went against Microsoft, the features in Windows that weren't part of the earlier version of Windows aren't covered by any agreement between the two companies. That's all the ruling says. It can be considered a ruling against Microsoft, because if the ruling had gone the other way, the case would (effectively) be over. But it doesn't really *say* anything -- it doesn't say that Apple holds the copyrights, that the copyrights are valid, or that Microsoft has violated those copyrights. From what I can tell, essentially nothing has been decided except that the trial needs to move into the next phase. (special disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not speaking for Apple, and I don't know what I'm talking about (which goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway...)) Chuq Von Rospach -*- Editor,OtherRealms -*- Member SFWA chuq@apple.com -*- CI$: 73317,635 -*- Delphi: CHUQ -*- Applelink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] USENET: N. A self-replicating phage engineered by the phone company to cause computers to spend large amounts of their owners budget on modem charges.
jas@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Jeffrey A. Sullivan) (03/24/89)
In article <1068@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, jln@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Jared Nedzel) writes: >> [Stuff about the Apple-MS ruling] > > Nevertheless, I think that Apple's suit is bad for the industry. If they win > it, I hope that Xerox has its lawyers warming up in the bullpen to sue > the pants off Apple. Why exactly do you think it's bad? It's just business. Apple does have copyrights filed, valid or not, and in order to keep them, they must take active measures to protect their copyrights. Vis, this lawsuit. If they fail to try to protect their copyright, it falls into the public domain. Now can you really fault Apple for not wanting the interface they spent millions of dollars on to become PD? Also, this bit about Xerox keeps coming up. Two points here. One, I think Apple licensed some of this technology from Xerox. Two, even if they didn't, it seems to this [obligatory disclaimer: NON-LAWYER] that they have not made any active attempts to keep their copyrights from being infringed upon. Now, if the first is true, which I believe, then everything's hunky-dory, unless Xerox sues Apple for expanding beyond the original license (just like the Apple-MS suit), but I doubt this, since the Mac interface and the current Xerox interfaces I know of (D-Machines) are not all that similar in specifics, and I'm fairly sure the basics would have been covered in the original agreement. And if the second point is true, then Xerox has lost by inaction their copyrights to begin with. Anyway, the main issue is that it IS NOT bad for the industry for developers to protect their creations. It is the root of capitalism (please no arguments about the inherent evilness of capitalism!). Try to put it in your perspective: You develop a whiz-bang new piece of software that everybody -- but EVERYBODY -- wants to run (e.g., an OS), and start making millions on it. But all of the sudden, all of your competitors bring up amazingly similar OSes and your profits decline dramatically. Wouldn't you seriously think about suing? -- ............................................................................... Jeffrey Sullivan DELPHI: JSULLIVAN | University of Pittsburgh jas@cadre.dsl., jasper@unx.cis. {pittsburgh.edu} | Intelligent Systems Studies jasper@PittVMS.BITNET, {jasst3 | jasper}@cisunx.UUCP
stores@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) (03/24/89)
In article <1068@Portia.Stanford.EDU> jln@Portia.UUCP (Jared Nedzel) writes: >think that the mouse was first developed by Doug Englebart (sp?) at the >Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in the mid-late '60s. This is true. A lot of this was developed here including the begining of hypertext. AS I Write this I am looking at a picture of the first mouse that was developed hanging on my wall. It came from the picture archives. It looks like it was made from a 2x4. It has two big metal wheels and a button on the top. just thought you might like to know. -- ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Mora SRI International stores@SRI.COM ___________________________________________________________
mnkonar@gorby.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) (03/24/89)
In article <1068@Portia.Stanford.EDU> jln@Portia.UUCP (Jared Nedzel) writes: [stuff about the origins of the Mac Interface] >Nevertheless, I think that Apple's suit is bad for the industry. If they win >it, I hope that Xerox has its lawyers warming up in the bullpen to sue >the pants off Apple. > Back in Apple's dark ages, there was apparently a proposal that Apple BUY Xerox. The ramifications of this are interesting. Xerox has recently been mentioned as a takeover target and Apple would have a lot to gain in such a deal. The argument that Xerox "really" owns any copyrights or patents on graphical interface technology would become moot. Of course the cost may not be worth it in the eyes of Apple. Still, it's interesting to ponder. ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP)
dts@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Daniel Senie) (03/24/89)
What is interesting about the copyright issue is that Microsoft DID lisence the interface from Xerox. I really wish the folk at Xerox would defend their copyrights. -- Daniel Senie UUCP: harvard!ulowell!cloud9!dts Stratus Computer, Inc. ARPA: anvil!cloud9!dts@harvard.harvard.edu 55 Fairbanks Blvd. CSRV: 74176,1347 Marlboro, MA 01752 TEL.: 508 - 460 - 2686
rat@madnix.UUCP (David Douthitt) (03/25/89)
Just my two cents worth...
Much as I love my Apples here at home, it makes me sick to see how sue-happy
Apple is. I'd like nothing more than to see Apple *LOSE* and see a lot of
this clone lawsuit garbage quit.
I think all of Apple's lawsuits to date have really been bad for the computer
industry, especially for the creation of new materials for Apple computers
and the like.
Consider this: suppose that someone had copyrighted the "look and feel" of
a book. Then you couldn't write a book without either licensing or violating
copyright.
Before you know it, we won't be able to think without violating copyright
in our thoughts somehow. ("STOP THINKING THAT THOUGHT! It's copyrighted!")
[david]
PS: Did someone forget comp.sys.apple??? Imagine my surprise to find this
discussion ONLY in comp.sys.ibm.pc! (I don't read either comp.sys.mac
or comp.windows.ms ...)
--
======== David Douthitt :::: Madison, WI :::: The Stainless Steel Rat ========
FidoNet: 1:121/2 ::::: WittiNet: "Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice." ::::::
UseNet: ...{rutgers|ucbvax|harvard}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!rat
ArpaNet: madnix!rat@cs.wisc.edu {decvax|att}!peter@apexepa.UUCP (Peter Palij) (03/28/89)
I think 25-Mar-89 _The Economist_ put it best: ... At stake is technology that promises to make computers easier to use. Clear ownership of user-interface technology would put Apple in a commanding market position. It would drastically alter competition and innovation. Imagine what might have happened had an early carmaker managed to patent the steering wheel, accelerator and brake pedals. Apple's chances of establishing such ownership seem slim, but other computer-makers and software houses will not rest easily until it is made clear what litigious Apple might or might not own. ... [What's more basic "look and feel" than the above mentioned components of an automobile?] -- -- ----------------- Peter Palij uunet!apexepa!peter Apex Software Corporation peter@apexepa.uucp Phone: (412) 681-4343
beckman@dev386.UUCP (Zacharias Beckman) (03/28/89)
In article <2574@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>, jas@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Jeffrey A. Sullivan) writes: > In article <1068@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, jln@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Jared Nedzel) writes: > > Nevertheless, I think that Apple's suit is bad for the industry. If they win > > it, I hope that Xerox has its lawyers warming up in the bullpen to sue > > the pants off Apple. > > Why exactly do you think it's bad? It's just business. Apple does > have copyrights filed, valid or not, and in order to keep them, they > must take active measures to protect their copyrights. Vis, this I agree; this lawsuit does seem bad for the industry from my perspective. In this day and age, it would be much more profitable to work toward a standardization -- consider the amount of profit that would become available if applications would run in similar environments on both Mac and IBM style systems (such as Pagemaker (desktop publishing by Aldus); it runs on both the Mac and Windows and provides a marvelous amount of portability). However, there is much more to the issue than this. I also agree that programmers and inventors have the right to protect their inventions. But, Apple did not invent the windowing environments. I believe it to be just too broad a concept to try and copyright. If Microsoft had produced an exact duplication of the Apple interface, there would certainly be cause (DRI's GEM was nearly a mirror image). However, they have not; indeed, I develop applications in Windows and have often used the Mac system. I don't see how Windows infringes upon Apple's copyright. All in all, it simply seems that all concerned parties would come out better in the end if they would stop attacking each other for the sake of protecting a concept such as this. Cooperate... nah, that's too much to ask. Zacharias Beckman.
garison@mirror.UUCP (Gary Piatt) (04/06/89)
In article <2574@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> Jeffrey A. Sullivan writes:
=> Try
=>to put it in your perspective: You develop a whiz-bang new piece of
=>software that everybody -- but EVERYBODY -- wants to run (e.g., an
=>OS), and start making millions on it. But all of the sudden, all of
=>your competitors bring up amazingly similar OSes and your profits
=>decline dramatically. Wouldn't you seriously think about suing?
Frankly, no. If I had already made millions of dollars on my software,
I would assume that the development costs had been covered and that
anything that I made over production costs (diskettes, shipping) was
clear profit. I would drop my retail price to cover production and
a small profit margin, knowing that my competitors could not match or
beat the price and still cover their (still outstanding) development
costs. The competition would go down in flames and I would once again
be the only producer of said software.
Apple is suing Microsoft solely for the public attention (in my own
opinion). Consider this: Apple makes Macintoshes, Mac II's, etc;
MS-Windows was written for PC's. Where's the competition? Apple is
not losing any business to Microsoft. In fact, it could be argued that
Apple gets free advertising evertime someone uses Windows; sooner or
later, a Windows user could be expected to purchase a Mac... going to
the horse's, uh, mouth, as it were.
-Garison-
Disclaimer:
The opinions stated above are of my own creation, and, therefore,
are probably wrong.gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman Gall) (04/06/89)
garison@prism.TMC.COM (Gary Piatt) writes: >Apple is suing Microsoft solely for the public attention (in my own >opinion). Consider this: Apple makes Macintoshes, Mac II's, etc; >MS-Windows was written for PC's. Where's the competition? Apple is >not losing any business to Microsoft. In fact, it could be argued that >Apple gets free advertising evertime someone uses Windows; sooner or >later, a Windows user could be expected to purchase a Mac... going to >the horse's, uh, mouth, as it were. Boy, you can sure tell YOU haven't worked in an IBM-only shop. If The 'suits' in your MIS or ACS dept. can say 'You don;t need mAcs, you have PCs with MS-Windows", you are screwed, blued, and Tattooed, and there's little you can do about it. The users have no recourse and that's how Apple loses ground to the competition. If, on the other hand, the only place to get the Mac-ish interface is from Apple, then the users can complain hard and long, and the MIS/ACS peple have to capitulate eventually (angry mob with lit tapers entering the computer room...) IBM... idiots bought me... -- nrg
sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Blake Sobiloff) (04/06/89)
In article <25056@mirror.UUCP> garison@prism.TMC.COM (Gary Piatt) writes: >Apple is suing Microsoft solely for the public attention (in my own >opinion). Consider this: Apple makes Macintoshes, Mac II's, etc; >MS-Windows was written for PC's. Where's the competition? Apple is >not losing any business to Microsoft. In fact, it could be argued that >Apple gets free advertising evertime someone uses Windows; sooner or >later, a Windows user could be expected to purchase a Mac... going to >the horse's, uh, mouth, as it were. I think that the problem Apple has with this is that there is such a much larger installed base of IBMs, plus they are "the 'safe' computer for business," . Corporations, and eventually personal users, will be tempted to buy Windows technology instead of Macs because they (usually) haven't experienced the difference between the two and assume that a graphics interface is a graphics interface is a graphics interface. In marketing circles this is called direct competition. Why would someone want to switch from IBM Windows (er, Microsoft) after they have invested so much money into the hardware and software, plus their time investment in learning the new programs (which is, of course, MUCH greater than on a Mac, right? :-) ? > > -Garison- > > >Disclaimer: > The opinions stated above are of my own creation, and, therefore, > are probably wrong. -- * Blake "Hey, where's *MY* fancy footer?" Sobiloff * * "Meet me in a restaurant..." or call me at- * * sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu *
iav1917%ritcv@cs.rit.edu (alan i. vymetalik) (04/07/89)
In article <25056@mirror.UUCP> garison@prism.TMC.COM (Gary Piatt) writes: [...] > >Apple is suing Microsoft solely for the public attention (in my own >opinion). Consider this: Apple makes Macintoshes, Mac II's, etc; >MS-Windows was written for PC's. Where's the competition? Apple is >not losing any business to Microsoft. In fact, it could be argued that >Apple gets free advertising evertime someone uses Windows; sooner or >later, a Windows user could be expected to purchase a Mac... going to >the horse's, uh, mouth, as it were. Concerning Apple's suit against Microsoft... These are my comments. I wrote them. They're mine. They may not be accurate, but they're presented to all for thought... Public attention? Yes, no doubt. It's a very visible case right now and the press loves to chew on these types "Silicon Valley Days" stories. However, Apple is not a "small fish" company. And, Apple's goals are not "small" either. I think it is easy to figure out that Apple has a bigger goal in mind: to nail Presentation Manager from Microsoft/IBM BEFORE it becomes a "hit" in the business world. If PM takes off, Apple can probably kiss goodbye its real advantages over the PC world (object-oriented OS, graphic interface, etc.). And, it does make one wonder, doesn't it, why IBM "invested" some $10,000,000 into NeXT, Inc. And, NeXT is supplying NeXTStep as well as the graphics interface for IBM's AIX machines (initially the RT series...initially...). Of course, IBM likes to cover "all its bases," however, $10M is a sizable chunk of money that COULD HAVE been spent on the Microsoft/IBM PM development (and O/S2). What, Microsoft CAN'T develop O/S2 - PM for $10M? Hmmm... Anyway, could this be a sign that IBM is going to push NeXTStep if Microsoft loses the suit? Only the Shadow knows for sure. Oh, keep an eye on Hewlett-Packard... Sharp stuff is coming from them soon... Rumors, rumors... Enjoy and watch the fireworks over the next couple of months... Alan -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mail: Alan I. Vymetalik, Prism Software Designs, 8 Barn Swallow Lane Rochester, New York, 14624-4650, USA Phone: (716)-889-2904 uucp: {seismo}!rochester!ritcv!iav1917 BITNET: aiv1917@ritvax -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
ks26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kenneth Sykes) (04/07/89)
> Boy, you can sure tell YOU haven't worked in an IBM-only shop. If The > 'suits' in your MIS or ACS dept. can say 'You don;t need mAcs, you > have PCs with MS-Windows", you are screwed, blued, and Tattooed, and > there's little you can do about it. The users have no recourse and > that's how Apple loses ground to the competition. If, on the other > hand, the only place to get the Mac-ish interface is from Apple, then > the users can complain hard and long, and the MIS/ACS peple have to > capitulate eventually (angry mob with lit tapers entering the computer > room...) > > IBM... idiots bought me... > > -- nrg There are a few things to consider that haven't been hit on yet: 1. Apple's current market share is roughly 10%, whereas the IBM-PC is roughly 23%. 2. There are GUI's available that offer more than the MAC, Windows, GEM, etc. (NewWave in particular). There was some discussion of 3-D windowing systems on comp.graphics that would blow away all of the above. 3. In spite of the fact that Apple won the first decision, all it has established is that Windows 2.03 is not covered under said contract. I wouldn't be so hasty to pop the champagne: Contract disputes are concrete cases, but copyrighting look-and-feel is VAGUE. Needless to say it will be a long, hard battle that wastes the time of two companies that could better spend their energies developing new technology instead of bickering over the old. In light of the above, Apple may be better off swallowing the suit and working towards making their platform compatible with IBMs. This would allow them to sell software to approximately 1/3 of all personal computers, instead of 10%. Doing so may allow them to increase market share by "graying" the line between IBM and Apple. --Ken Sykes
plocher%sally@Sun.COM (John Plocher) (04/13/89)
+---- In article <2574@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> Jeffrey A. Sullivan writes: | software that everybody -- but EVERYBODY -- wants to run (e.g., an | OS), and start making millions on it. But all of the sudden, all of | your competitors bring up amazingly similar OSes and your profits | decline dramatically. Wouldn't you seriously think about suing? +---- No. Case in point: AT&T developed Unix. All would agree that Unix has its own "Look and Feel". Yet there are dozens of companies out there developing and selling "Unix Lookalikes" - Wenden's PC/NX, Tannenbaum's Minix, Flex, Idris, and the Free Software Foundation's GNU project, to name a few. Has AT&T sued? No. Have these "Clones" helped AT&T sell more Unix? Sure. Unix is now very popular and many people want the REAL THING. Never mind that Gnu or SunOS (:-) or [whatever] is better, the AT&T label means a whole lot. Now, if AT&T were still selling V6 Unix and was losing money because everyone else had a BSD 4.3 system, AND if they couldn't keep up with the state of the art anymore, THEN I'd think that they would call in the lawyers and see if they could make some money that way... Remember IHMO and all that... -John Plocher
bruceb@microsoft.UUCP (Bruce Burger) (04/14/89)
> Frankly, no. If I had already made millions of dollars on my software, > I would assume that the development costs had been covered and that > anything that I made over production costs (diskettes, shipping) was > clear profit. I would drop my retail price to cover production and > a small profit margin, knowing that my competitors could not match or > beat the price and still cover their (still outstanding) development > costs. > be the only producer of said software. Actually diskettes and shipping are very small portions of the costs for most software vendors. Major costs include documentation and packaging, marketing (which includes dealer relations, taking calls from customers about all sorts of things, advertising, etc.), and product support. Also profits have to fund future development, which often pays back several years later if at all.