Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:38043 comp.sys.tandy:1612
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!pacbell!ames!mailrus!cwjcc!gatech!psuvax1!psuvm!uh2
From: UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.tandy
Subject: Re: uSoft/Apple and user interfaces
Message-ID: <89219.124955UH2@PSUVM>
Date: 7 Aug 89 16:49:55 GMT
References: <18548@gryphon.COM>
Organization: Penn State University - Center for Academic Computing
Lines: 20

In article <18548@gryphon.COM>, gmadison@pnet02.gryphon.com (George Madison) says:
>
>ugkamins@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Dr. R. Chandra) writes:
>>In all the stuff I've read recently on the copyright infringement suit
>>brought by Apple against MicroSoft for Windows 2.03, I have to wonder:
>>
>>Why did Commodore-Amiga's Intuition interface not enter into the suit?
>>Why did Tandy's DeskMate interface not enter into the suit?
>>
>
>My favorite answer to this is simply that in the case of Intuition, Apple
>didn't want the world to know there was a powerful, inexpensive, COLOR 68000
>machine on the market.  A lawsuit against Intuition would have brought the

Could be some of that going on.  More likely is that Intuition DOES NOT
have the same look and feel as the Mac.  Two buttons, different requestors,
color, abilty to have an active window in back, screens, different methods of
renaming objects...

                   lee