kreme@isis.cs.du.edu (Dave Sim's Ugly Brother) (04/18/91)
> = acmfiu@fiu.edu (ACMFIU) = me (kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu) [ I send I approved of apple, did not approve of Nintendo ] > i disagree. if you dislike one companies practicies and say that for you > to dislike another company it must have _the exact same_ practices, that is > mere folly. The fact is that Nintendos practices are ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, and completely contrary to every fair trade law ever written. The fact is also that Microsoft STOLE code from Apple and hired a former Apple employee (who just happened to be involved in the system software for the mac) to head up their Windos 3.0 project. Microsoft broke the law and stole ideas from Apple that Apple has ALWAYS religiously defended as their own. > also, i take the apple v microsoft lawsuit as an isolated case. i, as a > programmer, should be able to use whatever software is available at the > time to make my programs better. however, if apple wins this lawsuit, then > it will become clear to the software community that other ideas, such as > program languages, can be copyrighted. and that will inhibit me as a > programmer. i'm talking about me as a programmer not only for myself but > maybe for a company. now, if i happen to like the interface on the apple or > the mac, i _should_ be free to use it. You should be able to use someone elses code, call it yours, and sell it? I think you will find that if you write a comercial program in Turbo C, or MIcrosoft C, or Lightspeed C, or Orca C, you have to tell people that parts of the program are owned by the company that makes the compiler. This is fairly standard. What you are saying is that if someone else has a good idea on how to do something you can steal this idea and call it yours. This is just not how the law works. > if apple wins, then they will surely go after protection in other areas. > i can guarantee you that lotus will be in court with anyone who seeks to > emulate their pathetic 123 interface. but that's the way these "businessmen" > work. and if they won't listen to my letters. then they will listen to > my lack of money. granted they won't feel me leaving apple, but they will > feel me and thousands of other people leaving apple. i hope this happens and > apple falls. Lotus clones have been around for longer than Lotus itself. Lotus took its interface from Visicalc. Every spreadsheet program uses the same basic interface and always has. This is certainly not, nor has it ever been, the exclusive property of one company. Apple's Windowing environment with its destinct "look and feel" has never belonged to anyone but Apple. Apple is not suing over Icons, it is suing over the fact that Microsoft took specific ideas unique to the macintosh and market them as their own. > apple is seeking to stifle the productivity of programmers. now, if you want > to know why the programmer should be so dependent on one interface, well he > should not. but apple is an isolated case. multiply this and you should get > the picture. No, apple is seeking to protect it's property from corporate theft. The human interface guidlines are available for anyone to use, using Apple system soft- ware. The fact is Nintendo broke the law and Microsoft broke the law. Both lost. Both deserved to lose. As for stifiling programmers, you don't see Apple suing Microsoft for using the desktop interface for Microsoft Word, now do you? Who's stifiling whom? I think Apple is justified in their actions and I support them. I do not think Nintendo is. When I found out about Nintendos actions, I stopped buy- ing carts for the Nintendo and bought a Lynx instead. Better machine anyway. -- | kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu |The Coven BBS (303) 777 2911 PCP via CODEN Stalr*nk too| |---------------------|100 Megs of storage. Areas for IBM/MAC/Apple. Games. | | It is the spectator and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde |