pfr654@csc.anu.edu.au (03/15/91)
In article <46873@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes: > Repost of a message posted to IBM PC groups by Marc Ries: > From: ries@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Marc Ries) > Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.ms.programmer,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc > > Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows' GO APPLE!!! I always was suspicious of Windows. I am hoping for a final ruling something like that of the Polaroid vs Kodak suit, where the poor suckers who have bought Windows to try to turn their miserable PCs into Macs are left out in the cold :-) Apple Computer could, of course be really nice and allow such people to trade in their MS Windows for a Mac-for-Intel-processors interface, which I heard they were thinking of producing. I don't care what people say about 'industry standards' and 'millions of copies of windows have been sold' - the fact is that it is a copy of the Mac interface, and Microsoft has gone too far in duplicating the friendliness of it (as has HP, Sun, IBM, maybe even NeXT). If they want a particular thing they should be willing to pay for it, or else develop a whole new interface (after all, the Mac interface is about 10 years old - surely some new ideas have surfaced in that time). ************************************************************************* Phil Ryan * No matter where ANU Department of Physics and Theoretical Physics * you go... GPO Box 4, Canberra, Australia *... there you are. pfr654@csc.anu.edu.au * phone:06-249 4678 fax:06-249 0741 * Buckaroo Banzai *************************************************************************
eaeu137@orion.oac.uci.edu (Andrew Theodore Laurence) (03/15/91)
a previous posting...
[lots of ranting and raving about how everyone with a GUI is stealing the
Apple interface]
Oh, please. Surely you realize that Apple lifted the interface from Xerox??
An interesting side note is that Nutek, the folks who make that new Maclone
ship set, licensed thier GUI from Xerox, thereby idemnifying it from Apple
lawsuits (Xerox sued Apple over that interface and lost). A brilliant move,
as the interfaces have already been "proven" to be unrelated.
--Andrew Laurence
eaeu137@orion.oac.uci.educohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill) (03/15/91)
In article <1991Mar15.101202.1@csc.anu.edu.au> pfr654@csc.anu.edu.au writes: >> Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows' > >GO APPLE!!! > >I always was suspicious of Windows. I am hoping for a final ruling something >like that of the Polaroid vs Kodak suit, where the poor suckers who have >bought Windows to try to turn their miserable PCs into Macs are left out in >the cold :-) I dunno. We just got a couple copies of Windows here, because there are many more DOS users on campus than Mac users, and Windows is a joke. The 3.0 seems to have been deliberately designed not to look and work like the Mac interface, and everything seems awkward and clumsy. The windowing model is just plain stupid and confusing--some windows will only open inside of other windows, while other kinds of windows, with exactly the same appearance, can be moved anywhere on the screen. Lots of other dumb junk abounds.... I am sure Windows seems great to people who have had trouble with the simplisticly complicated DOS interface, but compared to any other windowing system (Mac, Motif, NeXT....) it is still just a toy. So why is it "successful"? I think it has to do more with the applications that are just now becoming available, that do offer some of the functionality of Mac apps, but we had all that stuff six years ago. Windows is a kluge. The Mac is not. One hell of a difference, in my opinion, and I still wonder why Apple should even care. As long as they keep pushing the Mac, Microsoft will never catch up. In one of the trade rags (back page of InfoWorld, I think), the point was made that Windows apps will never achieve the same level of functionality that Mac apps have because a Windows developer cannot count on a consistent set of hardware features--any Mac developer knows that every Mac user has high-res graphics, built-in networking, great sound output( and now sound input), and the same kind of processor (functionally, the 68000 differs little from the '030, unlike the '286 and the '386). Pity the poor DOS developer who actually has to worry if his or her Window app will run properly on a dinky '286 machine with an old mono display, no network, and no sound; *and* also work properly on a high end 386 with XGA color running Novell and a bunch of wierd high end hardware kluges to speed the software up. Windows and Mac--it's no contest, Apple...... -- | ...we have to look for routes of power our teachers never | imagined, or were encouraged to avoid. T. Pynchon | |Andy Cohill cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu VPI&SU
folta@tove.cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (03/16/91)
>Oh, please. Surely you realize that Apple lifted the interface from Xerox??
As I understand it, the dual claims that Microsoft was making:
1. Whatever Microsoft stole was covered by an agreement with Apple in 1985.
2. That Apple didn't have any legal standing anyhow, since they stole
their ideas from XEROX.
were both disallowed in this latest ruling. I think I read in the Wall Street
Journal that the judge had specifically said that Apple's ideas were unique
and were created independently of XEROX. The fact that XEROX lost its suit
while Apple's is allowed to go ahead says something. (Though one of XEROX's
problems was waiting too long to file suit. Also, I believe that I read that
the things that Apple directly borrowed are covered under a secret agreement
with XEROX.)
On another topic, Microsoft is now in hot water with the government over
allegations that it unfairly used its ownership of DOS and Windows to
sandbag competitors in the applications arena. It has been alleged that
MS talked others into developing for OS/2, while it developed for
Windows, knowing full well that it would sacrifice OS/2.
MS has more than one legal problem to worry about! I have also read that once
the government starts mucking around in MS's internal memos, it can find and
prosecute for things that have nothing to do with its initial investigation.
It seems that the proverbial 500-lb gorilla (MS) has to tussle with a
400-lb gorilla (Apple) and a 2000-lb gorilla (the FTC).
--
Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) (03/16/91)
In article <27E02D24.699@orion.oac.uci.edu> eaeu137@orion.oac.uci.edu (Andrew Theodore Laurence) writes: >a previous posting... > [lots of ranting and raving about how everyone with a GUI is stealing the > Apple interface] > >Oh, please. Surely you realize that Apple lifted the interface from Xerox?? Yes, Apple owes a debt to the Xerox work, but "lifted" is hardly the right word. Remember, software is developed by PEOPLE, not corporations. Work on GUIs went on at Xerox PARC for years. But Xerox management did not understand it, did not know what to do with it, and basically ignored it. Finally, the researchers quit in exasperation (if not disgust), some of them, e.g. Larry Tesler, ending up at Apple. What's more, there's a difference between a laboratory curiousity and a finished product. Apple and its engineers invested great effort, time, money, and creativity in putting together a few ideas that were current in the field with many of their own and making a real product. As for Windows, the original version, the one current when the Apple lawsuit was filed, was no more than a slavish copy. It contained no clue that the designers understood GUIs, or any of the trade-offs that go into producing a coherent user-friendly interface. All they wanted to do was produce something that *looked* like a Mac. So salesmen could tell naive customers asking about the merits of buying a Mac with its GUI, "Sure, the Mac interface is good, but you can get the same thing cheaper with this PC clone; see, it looks just the same." Since then, the Windows designers have improved, and put in some creativity of their own. But I have a hard time forgiving them for the original rip-off. Apple borrowed from the Xerox work, but they put lots of themselves into it. Microsoft just copied. John E. Doner doner@henri.ucsb.edu (805)893-3941 Dept. Mathematics, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
wieser@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) (03/16/91)
You refer to the wonderful LISP machine, the Xerox Star, but how can you 'lift' (implied steal) anything when you have hired some of the people who worked on the project? -- ( Bernie Wieser, wieser@cpsc.ucalgary.ca, BSWieser@uncamult.BITNET ) ( 4rth Year Dbl.Mgr Cpsc Clhc University of Calgary | ) ( S/H Developer Dept. of Psychology, " " " \|/ ) ( Octavian Micro Development Group --- o --- )
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/16/91)
doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) writes: >As for Windows, the original version, the one current when the Apple >lawsuit was filed, was no more than a slavish copy. As far as I know, the Apple lawsuit wasn't filed against the original version. Anyway, I would like to hear some arguments why you think that Windows (either version) is a "slavish copy", in your opinion. Both systems use rectangular windows of various sorts, but the specifiy look and feel of the user interface is quite different - where the menues are located, when and how a window is resized, how scroll bars work. The handling of the keyboard is very different (and better in Windows in my opinion, by the way). The standardization on the "application" as the main building block in Windows (which makes the "desk accessory" paradigm obsolet), is another example where both systems differ quite radically. A more detailed analysis would disclose more differences between the two architectures and the look&feel. Before you argue that these are minor differences induced by the different hardware platform, take a look at the original version of GEM, which runs on the same platform. *That* was a "slavish copy". You can compare it feature for feature: desktop with folders, exploding folders, menu bar at the top, system folder, position and function of the various controls surrounding an application window, desk accessories - most elements are nearly identical on both systems, GEM and Mac. Perhaps you confused GEM and Windows? > It contained no >clue that the designers understood GUIs, or any of the trade-offs that >go into producing a coherent user-friendly interface. All they wanted >to do was produce something that *looked* like a Mac. Nobody doubts that Apple has specialized in friendly user interface design. But don't jump to the conclusion that everybody else is plain stupid. From reading most of the Windows documentation and literature, I got the impression that the authors understood GUIs quite well. Nowhere is any direct or indirect indication that the main purpose of the system is to create something which looks like a Mac. Your statement and similar ones indicate that you do not understand the trade-offs that are necessary to have a GUI built on top of components from different sources, with no central control. > So salesmen >could tell naive customers asking about the merits of buying a Mac >with its GUI, "Sure, the Mac interface is good, but you can get the >same thing cheaper with this PC clone; see, it looks just the same." Sure. What whould you say in place of that salesman? And do you believe everything salesmen say? >Since then, the Windows designers have improved, and put in some >creativity of their own. But I have a hard time forgiving them for >the original rip-off. Apple borrowed from the Xerox work, but they >put lots of themselves into it. Microsoft just copied. This is such a blatant example of a biased statement, that it could become a classic. What about putting the last two sentences into your signature? ;-) Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) (03/17/91)
You can't deny people a right to practice their livelihood, and if someone has spent their life developing windowing systems then after leaving work at one corporation, after a short period of time, they are allowed to continue their work along the same lines (as long as patents are not infringed). In my experience the Mac is a big step beyond Xerox Star/Viewpoint. Xerox had an unreleased paint program but its interface was awful. Xerox did not start working on a paint *product* for outside release until 2 years after the Mac came out. The interface is *still* awful (last time I looked). Xerox did not have a clipboard that would hold picture language commands for interapplication communication. Xerox tried to integrate everything into one word processor, Because of this, they missed the chance to standardize an open architecture with a user-interface guide. The Mac system software is about 2-4 times faster than Xerox software, even with the microcode acceleration in the Star. Don Gillies | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign gillies@cs.uiuc.edu | Digital Computer Lab, 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana IL ---------------------+------------------------------------------------------ "UGH! WAR! ... What is it GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!" - the song "WAR" by Edwin Starr, circa 1971 --
rterry@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Ray Terry) (03/17/91)
What are you talking about??? Apple _lost_ all the important aspects of the lawsuit. See the news as of about a week or two ago... Ray
jp48+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan Pace) (03/17/91)
Since Mr. Strobl would like to hear an argument why the original version of windows is a "slavish copy", I'll give him one. The original version of windows, which Apple did not file suit against, was part of a licensing agreement with Apple. So, if you want to argue that it was an imitation of the Mac, it was. If you want to argue it wasn't since they had legal agreements to produce it, it wasn't. You decide. Apple filed suit because MS tried to re-engineer the parts that Apple wouldn't let them use. As I understand it, MS isn't able to produce any evidence that they used a clean room in their development. Apple contends that MS examined the codes and tried to massage them enough to _claim_ their own creative process went into them. Naturally they had to work around the many DOS systems on the market, but they started from Apple code, not a blank sheet (Apple's contention, not my statement). Personally, using Windows is not as easy as using the Mac. I've never programmed either, so I won't labor that point. It seems to have been beaten to death already. Jon Pace WARNING: My veiws contain backward messages that may give you the wrong idea that I care.
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (03/17/91)
In article <1991Mar15.224201.2622@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wieser@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) writes: > You refer to the wonderful LISP machine, the Xerox Star, but how can you > 'lift' (implied steal) anything when you have hired some of the people who > worked on the project? Most high-tech companies require employees to sign a confidentiality agreement that prohibits an employee to release any company information during or after employment. Some companies go so far as to make claims on any "invention" that a former employee creates for a period of time after employment (1 to 5 years). Even if you don't have an explicit agreement, there are trade secret laws (in the USA, at least). For example, a person might expect to be sued if they release the client list of a former employeer to a competitor. But you are right when talking about the people. Alan Kay went to Apple, Bill Metcalf started 3Com, Massaro, Liddel and Charles Irby started Metaphor, and both HP and Microsoft hired ex-PARC employees. You could ask how any company can own any piece over any of the other companies involved. But a better question to ask is why did Xerox fail when it had all of these bright people with all of these good ideas? -john- -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/17/91)
jp48+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan Pace) writes: > Since Mr. Strobl would like to hear an argument why the original version of >windows is a "slavish copy", I'll give him one. > The original version of windows, which Apple did not file suit against, was >part of a licensing agreement with Apple. So, if you want to argue that it was >an imitation of the Mac, it was. If you want to argue it wasn't since they had >legal agreements to produce it, it wasn't. You decide. I don't know the exact contents of the licensing agreement you refer to, so I don't have an opinion about whether Microsoft has or had the legal right to create an imitation of the GUI of the Macintosh. My argument is that it doesn't matter, because they didn't do it. I tried to describe a few areas where I see technical and architectural differences between the two GUIs, to substantiate my statement, and asked for technical, not legal facts which might give reasons for the so far unsubstantiated description of Windows as a "slavish copy" of the Macintosh GUI. So far I got nothing. > Apple filed suit because MS tried to re-engineer the parts that Apple >wouldn't let them use. As I understand it, MS isn't able to produce any >evidence that they used a clean room in their development. Apple contends >that MS examined the codes and tried to massage them enough to _claim_ their >own creative process went into them. Naturally they had to work around the >many DOS systems on the market, but they started from Apple code, not a blank >sheet (Apple's contention, not my statement). I have no way to to check the truth of such facts other than looking at what is visible to an ordinary developer. From that point of view, it sounds quite improbable that MS-Windows is built upon code from Apple. Anyway, given the fact that both systems where developed most of the time in parallel and built upon the earlier work of others, the "clean room" requirement is not applicable. By the way, what about Apple? Did they use a clear room approach building their system? > Personally, using Windows is not as easy as using the Mac. I've never >programmed either, so I won't labor that point. It seems to have been beaten >to death already. Using Windows is not as easy as using the Mac (from a Mac users point of view). Using the Mac is not as easy as using Windows (from a Windows users point of view). Using the Mac is easier than using Windows, for somebody starting anew. This is partially because of technical differences (closed system vs. open system), partially because Windows has to work around the lack of certain surface features - the waste basket comes to mind - which Apple seems to own, partially because Apple invests more into what they call "Human Interface Design" and nothing into support for cheap hardware from various sources. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
kiran@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) (03/18/91)
Wolfgang Strobl writes:
"partially because Apple invests more into what they call
"Human Interface Design" and nothing into support for cheap hardware
from various sources."
Sounds like a good trare-off to me. Why should Apple waste its money
supporting people who are too cheap to pay for quality and instead buy
inferior products? As you might guess, I think Apple is right in not
making its technology as freely available as IBM has made its tech. It
seems that _anyone_ can make an ibm-"compatible" machine... What does
this do to both quality control and the ability to make a change that
affects all the machines for the better (such as new system software :-))
--
...kiran
__________kiran@copper.ucs.indiana.edu________(812) 331-1710
From the corrections column in a July Fresno, CA _Bee_:
"An item in Thursday's [issue] about the Massachusetts budget crisis
made reference to new taxes that will help put Massachusetts 'back in
the African-American.' The item should have said 'back in the black.'"russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (03/18/91)
In article <107990007@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com> rterry@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Ray Terry) writes: >What are you talking about??? Apple _lost_ all the important aspects of the >lawsuit. See the news as of about a week or two ago... Excuse me? News I saw was that 1) The suit WILL go to trial 2) The disputed material is NOT covered by the license agreement 3) The disputed material was NOT taken from Xerox, but was an original Apple work. All of that is important. The one thing Apple lost on was they weren't able to keep it on the grounds of look and feel-- the suit will be decided on the basis of specific copyrights on specific features. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus. I mine 600 wells, and whaddo I get? Another day older and deeper in debt! --- Saddam Hussein.
rterry@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Ray Terry) (03/19/91)
The incredible shrinking lawsuit
________________________________
Issues at stake in the lawsuit filed March 17, 1988, by Apple
Computer against Microsoft and HP for alleged copyright infringement
(related to Microsoft Windows 2.03 and the HP NewWave software
environment) continue to shrink in the latest court ruling. On
March 6, Judge Vaughn Walker filed papers in San Francisco at the U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, which:
o confirmed rejection of Apple's fundamental contention that
the total "look and feel" of the Macintosh graphical user
interface is protected by copyright;
o denied Apple's motion that the court declare its copyrights
valid; and
o further narrowed the number of items still at issue for HP.
(Remaining items are trivial. For example, Apple claims
copyright protection for the ability to center the name of an
icon. HP points out that words can only be positioned left,
right or center, so Apple is not entitled to "own" one of
those presentations.)
Judge Walker asked the parties to meet some time in the next 45
days to prepare for a status conference.gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) (03/19/91)
pfr654@csc.anu.edu.au writes: >In article <46873@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes: >> Repost of a message posted to IBM PC groups by Marc Ries: >> From: ries@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Marc Ries) >> Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.ms.programmer,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc >> >> Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows' >GO APPLE!!! >I always was suspicious of Windows. I am hoping for a final ruling something >like that of the Polaroid vs Kodak suit, where the poor suckers who have >bought Windows to try to turn their miserable PCs into Macs are left out in >the cold :-) I suppse you're unhappy because you didn't pay enough for your macintosh, and you'd like to pay more. Listen up everyone. One of the reasons for the recent price drops throughout the macintosh line is Windows 3.0. Microsoft has prompted Apple to lower its prices, and yet, some bozos are slamming Microsoft for it. You should not bite the hand that feeds you. Don Gillies | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign gillies@cs.uiuc.edu | Digital Computer Lab, 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana IL ---------------------+------------------------------------------------------ "UGH! WAR! ... What is it GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!" - the song "WAR" by Edwin Starr, circa 1971 --
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (03/20/91)
In article <1991Mar19.154536.31566@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: >pfr654@csc.anu.edu.au writes: > >>In article <46873@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes: >>> Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows' > >>GO APPLE!!! > >>I always was suspicious of Windows. I am hoping for a final ruling something >>like that of the Polaroid vs Kodak suit, where the poor suckers who have >>bought Windows to try to turn their miserable PCs into Macs are left out in >>the cold :-) > >I suppse you're unhappy because you didn't pay enough for your >macintosh, and you'd like to pay more. Listen up everyone. One of >the reasons for the recent price drops throughout the macintosh line >is Windows 3.0. Microsoft has prompted Apple to lower its prices, and >yet, some bozos are slamming Microsoft for it. You should not bite >the hand that feeds you. ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ????!!!! Apple lowered its prices and introduced less costly models because it was LOSING MARKET SHARE. Period. This slide began long before Windows 3 was released. It also appears to have been reversed. I've read recent statements from industry analysts along the lines of "...astonishing rebound...", "...complete turnaround...", etc., concerning Apple's recent sales. I think they were +50% in fourth quarter '90. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 "Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6900
dth@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David Hightower) (03/20/91)
In article <1991Mar19.154536.31566@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: >I suppse you're unhappy because you didn't pay enough for your >macintosh, and you'd like to pay more. Listen up everyone. One of >the reasons for the recent price drops throughout the macintosh line >is Windows 3.0. Microsoft has prompted Apple to lower its prices, and >yet, some bozos are slamming Microsoft for it. You should not bite >the hand that feeds you. > >Don Gillies | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign >gillies@cs.uiuc.edu | Digital Computer Lab, 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana IL Actually, Apple has had low-cost Macs in development for quite some time now.....LONG before Win3 came out. The problem with releasing them goes to one of the basic tenets of the Macintosh--that of quality control. Granted, Macs have had their problems, but not NEAR as much as on the PC side. This has been reflected in several previous posts. Microsoft hasn't fed me anything; It seems that we have been feeding Bill Gates too much rich food, and he has decided that he likes it, and wants even more. >"UGH! WAR! ... What is it GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!" > - the song "WAR" by Edwin Starr, circa 1971 Ask the Kuwaitis. _________________________________________________________________________ Dave Hightower | opinion? I'm allowed to have an opinion? dth@cis.ufl.edu | well, if I DID have one, it'd be mine, all mine! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAW OF COMBAT #1: Incoming fire has the right of way #2: If the enemy's in range, so are you #3: Never share a foxhole with anyone braver than you #4: Never forget that you weapon is made by the lowest bidder
jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) (03/20/91)
In article <kiran.669261145@copper> kiran@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes: >Wolfgang Strobl writes: >"partially because Apple invests more into what they call >"Human Interface Design" and nothing into support for cheap hardware >from various sources." > >Sounds like a good trare-off to me. Why should Apple waste its money >supporting people who are too cheap to pay for quality and instead buy >inferior products? As you might guess, I think Apple is right in not >making its technology as freely available as IBM has made its tech. It >seems that _anyone_ can make an ibm-"compatible" machine... What does >this do to both quality control and the ability to make a change that >affects all the machines for the better (such as new system software :-)) > Come on... do you think IBM *willingly* gave up its architecture to the cloners? No way; it fought tooth and nail, but someone (Phoenix?) got a clean-room BIOS done, and that was that. IBM had no legal leg to stand upon. But they sure spread FUD about the clones for as long as they could. When IBM came out with their new MCA, they said the cloners were SOL, but the cloners stymied them by announcing that someone had come up with a functional equivalent of MCA, so IBM about-faced and announced it's intent to license MCA. No going concern will willingly give up areas where it can profit. These areas are lost by competition, and not all of it is fair. A lot of times the "competitors" have the advantage of not accruing any R&D costs, so they can undercut the originators. Apart from the lunatic fringe of GNU people who seem to think that people in the real world would get paid to produce good software and give it away, no one believes that a market without some protection for originators of new things (ideas, procedures, etc.) would work. It's a "Tragedy of the Commons" case, thinly veiled. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey A. Sullivan | Senior Systems Programmer jas@venera.isi.edu | Information Sciences Institute jas@isi.edu | University of Southern California
Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org.org (Jim Spencer) (03/20/91)
Ray Terry writes in a message to All RT> What are you talking about??? Apple _lost_ all the important RT> aspects of the lawsuit. See the news as of about a week or two RT> ago... Certainly the analysts on Wall Street didn't see it that way. It was reported in the WSJ as a fairly significant victory for Apple.
wieser@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) (03/20/91)
Well Don, I don't know if I can agree with the "bite the hand" argument. If you compare apples and ibms, you might see something interesting. Let's speculate! Clones and compatibles damaged ibms PC sales big time. So ibm has less money/interest in PC r&d. We get the same old ibm product for years in a new package. But, Apple pretty much controls the rights to its property. It has more money to spend in r&d. It listens to the long term gripes of the 12k user, and develops some great machines (like the Classic). I don't believe Windows makes an impact on Mac. In fact, I think people may view Windows and OSx as a poor attempts to catch up to modern user's needs, while Apple is cautiously proceeding into the future. And then... there's NeXT. -- ( Bernie Wieser, wieser@cpsc.ucalgary.ca, BSWieser@uncamult.BITNET ) ( 4rth Year Dbl.Mgr Cpsc Clhc University of Calgary | ) ( S/H Developer Dept. of Psychology, " " " \|/ ) ( Octavian Micro Development Group --- o --- )
umh@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (03/20/91)
This message is empty.
cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) (03/20/91)
In article <1991Mar19.165550.6081@midway.uchicago.edu>, jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: > > Apple lowered its prices and introduced less costly models because it was > LOSING MARKET SHARE. Period. This slide began long before Windows 3 was > released. It also appears to have been reversed. I've read recent > statements from industry analysts along the lines of "...astonishing > rebound...", "...complete turnaround...", etc., concerning Apple's recent > sales. I think they were +50% in fourth quarter '90. More than that- Apple's stock price has DOUBLED in the last few months. Unit sales are up about 50%, as you said, and many of the big name stock gurus are upgrading Apple's rating. I wish I'd had the money to buy stock back in September like I wanted. ;-) -- |////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////| |\\\\\\| C Irby cirby@untvax cirby@vaxa.acs.unt.edu |\\\\\\| |//////| He frowns thoughtfully. "I wonder why the |//////| |\\\\\\| Fascists always have the best uniforms." |\\\\\\| |////////////////////////-Spy Magazine-//////////////////////////|
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) (03/21/91)
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >Apple lowered its prices and introduced less costly models because it was >LOSING MARKET SHARE. Period. This slide began long before Windows 3 was >released. It also appears to have been reversed. I've read recent >statements from industry analysts along the lines of "...astonishing >rebound...", "...complete turnaround...", etc., concerning Apple's recent >sales. I think they were +50% in fourth quarter '90. This is really a dumb statement. You really misunderstood in three different ways -- (1) Apple's suit is about windows 2.03, filed in 1988. This suit is quite old. Two years is a one product generation in the computer industry. (2) I said people could thank Microsoft for the Apple price reductions over the last 12 months to existing models (including just one week ago). Every old apple CPU has been marked down in price. (3) You have to be willing to follow through in your thinking -- why was Apple losing market share? It's not really because their hardware is way overpriced (as much as 100% markup until recently), but because people have a perception, true or false, that they can get a mac-like environment from windows. Just go into any computer store and walk up to any color machine. What is it running? The snazziest applications that are available under ms-windows. Frankly, microsoft is keeping Apple honest by chipping away at their windowing advantage, piece by piece. So what if it's an inferior ripoff. Over the past 2 years it's come close enough to toast Apple's sales. In response Apple has been forced to reduce margins to < 50% MARKUP on several models (according to some trade rags). Of course Apple's sales will jump if they start to compete on price. Of course you can thank Microsoft for firing the first volley -- windows 2.03. Don Gillies | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign gillies@cs.uiuc.edu | Digital Computer Lab, 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana IL ---------------------+------------------------------------------------------ "UGH! WAR! ... What is it GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!" - the song "WAR" by Edwin Starr, circa 1971 --
folta@tove.cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (03/21/91)
I don't know where some of the claims of an Apple loss come from, but here is the word from March 7 Wall Street Journal: A federal judge boosted Apple Computer Inc's chances to profit from the huge popularity of graphical personal-computer command systems, striking down several key defense arguments in its copyright infringement case against rivals Microsoft Corp and Hewlett-Packard Co. ... Judge Vaughn Walker issued a decision that undercut arguments that Apple's copyrights to the system software for its Macintosh computers were invalid. The judge didn't flatly rule that Apple's copyrights were valid, but he threw out two key arguments against Apple's claims and said that remaining questions about copyright validity and infringement would be settled "in connection with adjudication." The arguments dismissed related to whether Apple's work was original and whether the company committed fraud on the US Copyright Office by failing to disclose certain pre-existing programs that influenced its programs. The judge also rejected a contention by Microsoft that a license it had received from Apple in 1985 gave it the right to certain key technical features. The judge found that Apple hadn't given Microsoft rights to use "overlapping windows" or certain icon movements, a significant part of the look and feel of Apple's Macintosh. Judge Walker, maenwhile, held that Hewlett-Packard was entitled to utilize certain of Apple's visual displays that Microsoft licensed to it. But the judge granted narrower protection than Hewlett-Packard had sought. ... In his 72-page ruling, the judge rejected a contention that Apple's software, which controls the basic operations of the Macintosh, were based on an earlier program designed by Xerox Corp. He said that Apple's software was independently created and "reveal(s) scant similarity of expression" with the Xerox program. Additionally, the judge said that Apple's failure to disclose to copyright authorities the influence of the Xerox work didn't amount to fraud because there was no evidence that Apple's work was infringing Xerox copyrights or were substantially borrowed. ... Because Microsoft still has many possible legal maneuvers, analysts say it isn't likely this decision will prompt a settlement. The judge denied Apple's bid to revive the idea that the case turns on an assesment of the "total concept of look and feel" of the Macinsoth, as opposed to comparing its individual elements with the competing programs. ... [Deleted para that said a narrow victory might just involve a minor facelift by MS.] But Apple officials said because Judge Walker has left the overlapping windows issue in the case, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard may be faced with more fundamental changes. "We have demonstrated there are many ways to do overlapping windows," Mr. Stead, Apple's general counsel, said, indicating that he believes those ways would still be afforded copyright protection. -- Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (03/22/91)
cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) writes: >More than that- Apple's stock price has DOUBLED in the last few months. Let's not lose the context of the stock price rise. As Gantz points out in a recent InfoWorld column, quite a number of high-tech companies have seen their share price rise, including AST, Compaq, *and* Microsoft. These advances began with the market's general advance, which itself began the day after the war began. Now, what conclusions do you draw from *that*? Let's also be careful how we respond to the court's ruling. One article (InfoWorld) headlines "Court Rules Apple's Copyrights are Valid", while an article in PC Week specifically states the court did *not* rule on the validity of Apple's copyrights. Some of us look forward to a proper analysis by someone who has actually *read* the ruling and understands its implications. ----------- uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake shwake@rsxtech
sabbagh@acf5.NYU.EDU (sabbagh) (03/22/91)
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: > (3) You have to be willing to follow through in your thinking -- why > was Apple losing market share? It's not really because their hardware > is way overpriced (as much as 100% markup until recently), but > because people have a perception, true or false, that they can get a > mac-like environment from windows. Just go into any computer store > and walk up to any color machine. What is it running? The snazziest > applications that are available under ms-windows. Apple was losing their market share because (1) they are expensive and (2) they are percieved as being home computers. The recent price reductions have resulted in 50% increase in their current market share and the Mac Classic is now the most popular computer for sale, ever. I believe by introducing the IIfx and other systems, they are aiming to change (2). I don't think Windows has done that much to the Mac market; it may have improved it. Sure, new computer buyers see snazzy Windows demos when they walk into ComputerLand, but they KNOW someone who owns a Macintosh, and have been aware of the major differences bewteen the two platforms. Also, Windows 3.0 is rapidly going down in history is the best marketed piece of shelfware ever. Hadil G. Sabbagh E-mail: sabbagh@cs.nyu.edu Voice: (212) 998-3125 Snail: Courant Institute of Math. Sci. 251 Mercer St. New York,NY 10012 "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr. Disclaimer: This is not a disclaimer.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/23/91)
sabbagh@acf5.NYU.EDU (sabbagh) writes: >Also, Windows 3.0 is rapidly going down in history >as the best marketed piece of shelfware ever. Disinformation from the Apple bigots. Certainly not true at my company. I'd guess there are probably a thousand or so Excel 3.0s installed here, judging from the stacks they were selling at our End User Support Center. Of course, we only paid $129. We have groups buying new machines just to run Windows. (and throwing out unix workstations in the process) -- Help! I just got a Macintosh. Anyone got a magnifying glass?
woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (03/23/91)
In article <1991Mar22.190734.13485@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >sabbagh@acf5.NYU.EDU (sabbagh) writes: >>Also, Windows 3.0 is rapidly going down in history >>as the best marketed piece of shelfware ever. > >Disinformation from the Apple bigots. You know, you're not making friends that way. >-- >Help! I just got a Macintosh. Anyone got a magnifying glass? And loose these damned signature lines, too. They're rather offensive, and only make you out to be a Windows bigot. -- William Edward Woody | Disclamer: USNAIL P.O.Box 50986; Pasadena, CA 91115 | EMAIL woody@tybalt.caltech.edu | The useful stuff in this message ICBM 34 08' 44''N x 118 08' 41''W | was only line noise.
Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org.org (Jim Spencer) (03/24/91)
Phil Ngai writes in a message to All >Also, Windows 3.0 is rapidly going down in history >as the best marketed piece of shelfware ever. PN> Disinformation from the Apple bigots. PN> Certainly not true at my company. I'd guess there are probably PN> a thousand or so Excel 3.0s installed here, judging from the PN> stacks they were selling at our End User Support Center. PN> Of course, we only paid $129. PN> We have groups buying new machines just to run Windows. (and PN> throwing out unix workstations in the process) While there certainly is a lot of truth in what you say, I've seen the comment about Windows being selfware from a lot of DOS oriented magazines as well.