rms@AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) (11/23/90)
Now that somebody is accusing me of lying, please forgive me for explaining in detail what I had hoped to summarize with a single sentence for the sake of bringing this discussion to an end. I fear that if I don't respond, the readers will assume it means he is right. The article by Professor Samuelson in CACM, November 1990 explains why the Lotus decision is unclear in the scope of its significance, and could imply a wide monopoly, even though the actual case involved very close similarity of interfaces. No one can be sure just how much has been made illegal. The points remaining in the Apple lawsuit cover very general aspects of the user interface. (The more specific and minor points of similarity were tossed out.) If Apple wins, this will give them a very general monopoly. Just how general is something that only subsequent lawsuits would show. Perhaps the Apple monopoly will not cover all possible desktop programs. But nobody will know for certain how far it reaches. In fact, it is a mistake to speak as if there is a precise scope that waits to be discovered, because the outcome of a particular subsequent lawsuit would depend to some extent on random factors. Implementing any desktop program would risk a lawsuit, which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. (Not to mention the problem of user intimidation even in the absence of a lawsuit.) Whether this means you cannot have windows and a desktop is partly a matter of how much you like to gamble and how much money you have. If you are a millionaire and you like to gamble, you could have a fair chance of ultimate success. But that is not very comforting from my point of view.