pasek@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Michael A. Pasek) (12/06/90)
Just wondering what is happening with the Apple/Microsoft lawsuit regarding Windows 2.0 (and, presumably, Windows 3.0). I haven't heard a thing since hearing that the judge dismissed some of the points, but left others. Personally, I'd LOVE to see the faces of my PC-coworkers (who smugly say "See, now my PC is JUST like a Mac !) when their software becomes illegal! Of course, maybe Apple (and Microsoft, for that matter) would be better served by letting Windows deliver the coup de grace to OS/2 and Presentation Manager BEFORE letting the judge decide that Windows infringes on the Mac's Look-and-Feel. Sorry if this starts another flame-fest about the merits of the lawsuit. M. A. Pasek Software Development NCR Comten, Inc. (612) 638-7668 NP Development 2700 N. Snelling Ave. pasek@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM Roseville, MN 55113
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (12/09/90)
pasek@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Michael A. Pasek) climbs the minaret and chants this call for a jihad: >Just wondering what is happening with the Apple/Microsoft lawsuit regarding >Windows 2.0 (and, presumably, Windows 3.0). I haven't heard a thing since >hearing that the judge dismissed some of the points, but left others. >Personally, I'd LOVE to see the faces of my PC-coworkers (who smugly say >"See, now my PC is JUST like a Mac !) when their software becomes illegal! >Of course, maybe Apple (and Microsoft, for that matter) would be better >served by letting Windows deliver the coup de grace to OS/2 and Presentation >Manager BEFORE letting the judge decide that Windows infringes on the Mac's >Look-and-Feel. >Sorry if this starts another flame-fest about the merits of the lawsuit. Well, if you don't want a flame-fest, why behave like a platform chauvinist? The readers of this group dislike DOS just as much as you do, or they would not be reading it, but why attempt by artificial means to prevent it from getting better? Don't you think using DOS (even with a Windows 3.0 overlay on a RAM-loaded 486) is punishment enough? Why do you wish to stop progress? Windows is not more like the Mac interface than, say, NeXTstep. Maybe you feel that all GUIs violate Apple's divine right to the graphical interface. If so, please remember that it was originally created by Xerox, at the time part-owner of Apple. Apple never paid a cent for it. A belated Xerox suit against Apple, claiming a divine right to the graphical interface, was laughed out of court earlier this year. Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)
coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (12/10/90)
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >Maybe you feel >that all GUIs violate Apple's divine right to the graphical interface. If so, >please remember that it was originally created by Xerox, at the time part-owner >of Apple. Apple never paid a cent for it. A belated Xerox suit against Apple, >claiming a divine right to the graphical interface, was laughed out of court >earlier this year. This is not true. Apple was never partially owned by Xerox. Apple did acquire a good deal of their graphical interface from Xerox, while inventing other parts in-house. So far, Apple's lawsuits have centered around only the work they did independent of Xerox. Apple paid Xerox a percentage of the revenue on every Macintosh sold between 1984 and 1989 as payment for their use of Xerox's research. I'm not sure what the percentage was; I believe it was a few percent of net profit. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1990 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (12/10/90)
coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) writes: >boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >>Maybe you feel >>that all GUIs violate Apple's divine right to the graphical interface. If so, >>please remember that it was originally created by Xerox, at the time >>part-owner >>of Apple. Apple never paid a cent for it. A belated Xerox suit against Apple, >>claiming a divine right to the graphical interface, was laughed out of court >>earlier this year. >This is not true. Apple was never partially owned by Xerox. From "West of Eden: The Loss of Innocence at Apple Computer" by Frank Rose, New York: Viking Penguin, 1989, page 47: "After years of hedging [Xerox] had finally okayed development of an office computer based on PARC research, but personal computers for office workers seemed pretty radical in 1979. The action was in low-cost home computers, and it looked to them like the best way to get into it was by buying into Apple. But they couldn't get in just for the asking; Apple stock was too much in demand for that. So in exchange for being allowed to buy 100,000 shares, Xerox agreed to open the doors of its Palo Alto Research Center to Apple's vice-president for research and development, Steve Jobs. Jobs' tour of Xerox PARC turned out to be a signal even in the history of personal computing. (...)" Rose proceeds to describe Jobs' encounter with PARC's prototype Alto computer, which inspired him to start working on what ultimately became the Lisa and the Macintosh, the first affordable GUI-based microcomputers. >Apple paid Xerox a percentage of the revenue on every Macintosh sold >between 1984 and 1989 as payment for their use of Xerox's research. >I'm not sure what the percentage was; I believe it was a few percent >of net profit. I was not aware of that. Could any Apple readers of this clarify whether such payments took place? It seems to me that if Apple did pay Xerox for the use of its research, then Xerox would not have any legal standing in its attempt to seek compensation (which failed and is now on appeal), for the same reason that airline insurers attempt to settle with families of crash victims before the families bring wrongful-death suits: once you willingly take compensation for something, you cannot seek higher compensation through the courts unless you can prove duress or fraud in the original settlement. Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)
dbarnhar@oiscola.Columbia.NCR.COM (12/14/90)
In article <1990Dec9.073046.23818@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >pasek@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Michael A. Pasek) climbs the minaret and chants >this call for a jihad: > >>Just wondering what is happening with the Apple/Microsoft lawsuit regarding >>Windows 2.0 (and, presumably, Windows 3.0). I haven't heard a thing since >>hearing that the judge dismissed some of the points, but left others. >>Personally, I'd LOVE to see the faces of my PC-coworkers (who smugly say >>"See, now my PC is JUST like a Mac !) when their software becomes illegal! >>Of course, maybe Apple (and Microsoft, for that matter) would be better >>served by letting Windows deliver the coup de grace to OS/2 and Presentation >>Manager BEFORE letting the judge decide that Windows infringes on the Mac's >>Look-and-Feel. >>Sorry if this starts another flame-fest about the merits of the lawsuit. > >Well, if you don't want a flame-fest, why behave like a platform chauvinist? >The readers of this group dislike DOS just as much as you do, or they would >not be reading it, but why attempt by artificial means to prevent it from >getting better? Don't you think using DOS (even with a Windows 3.0 overlay >on a RAM-loaded 486) is punishment enough? Why do you wish to stop >progress? Come On! Part of that statement was obviously tongue-in-cheek, but you'd have to work in an IBM-or-compatible-only shop to understand. It gets very hard to justify a Mac (even with its obvious superiority in some applications) to your boss or co-workers when he says "Just buy Windows, and your PC will be just like a Mac." We all know that statement is untrue, but with widespread belief that it is gospel, those who count beans for a living will never take the time to understand the true situation. In fact, those of us who must work with PCs every day would love DOS to improve to the point where it's just as good as a Mac. Then, we wouldn't get Mac-Envy, and with the competition, Apple might be forced to lower prices to compete, hence satisfying the bean-counters. Bad for Apple, perhaps, but great for us users. However, in the meantime, the existence of a product such as Windows prevents those of us who would rather use a Mac from doing so, because now "A PC is just like a Mac." Ha! Even though Windows is an excellent product, it certainly is no replacement for a Mac. An to an extent, I agree with what Mike Pasek says. Although I don't really want Apple to win such a suit, it WOULD be GREAT to be able to smile at your boss as his Windows is removed from his machine, and say "Just like a Mac, huh?" A PC user (but Mac at home :-), Dave Barnhart NCR Cooperative Computing Systems Division 3245 Platt Springs Rd. West Columbia, SC 29169 email: uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!oiscola!dbarnhar -- Dave Barnhart NCR Cooperative Computing Systems Division 3245 Platt Springs Rd. West Columbia, SC 29169 email: uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!oiscola!dbarnhar
murat@farcomp.UUCP (Murat Konar) (12/14/90)
>This is not true. Apple was never partially owned by Xerox. Apple did
Bzzt! Xerox was an early investor in Apple.
An interesting twist: During the bad old days (just after the original Mac was
released and it looked like Apple was in trouble), Apple considered buying
Xerox (!) for its distribution and service arms. Had it happened, Apple would
have been able to claim ownership of the research that ended up in the Lisa
and the Mac.
Disclaimer: This information was gleaned from John Sculley's book "Odyssey:
From Pepsi to Apple" or somthing like that. Im sure I botched some of the
details. For this I apologize.
--
____________________________________________________________________
Have a day. :^|
Murat N. Konar
murat@farcomp.UUCP -or- farcomp!murat@apple.comewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (12/19/90)
In article <283@farcomp.UUCP> murat@farcomp.UUCP (Murat Konar) writes: >Bzzt! Xerox was an early investor in Apple. In fact, Xerox was one of Apple's largest stockholders (~20%).