Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:37897 comp.sys.tandy:1600
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!ugkamins@cs.Buffalo.EDU
From: ugkamins@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Dr. R. Chandra)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.tandy
Subject: uSoft/Apple and user interfaces
Message-ID: <9025@cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Date: 5 Aug 89 07:38:21 GMT
Sender: news@cs.Buffalo.EDU
Reply-To: ugkamins@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Dr. R. Chandra)
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
Lines: 27

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?

From what I read in gnu.misc.discuss, Intuition windows sound exactly
like uSoft's Windows and Mac windows.  DeskMate windows and dialog
boxes, while not similar to me, seem to share many of the same graphic
ideas (especially dialog boxes with all those buttons that can be
"pressed").

So my basic question is: why leave these guys alone and only go after
uSoft and HP???
---
We can only contemplate the facts as we are able to perceive them.
Do we get what we deserve, or deserve what we get?
"I've seen yellow STRIPES in the middle of the road before, kids, but, ah,
  never quite this WIDE!"  -- Tom "T-bone" Stankus
ugkamins@sunybcs.UUCP  (UnderGraduate john i. KAMINSki)

ps--I might add that I think that Intuition is better, but this is
chiefly due to the fact that Commodore decided to go with a two-button
mouse, and therefore simplify menu selection.  I also didn't see (yet)
mention of submenus, which Intuition has.

pps--I hope Apple loses everything in the suit (personal opinion).