Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!dali!milton!gwangung
From: gwangung@milton.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Xerox suit against Apple update
Message-ID: <2545@milton.acs.washington.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 90 06:23:51 GMT
References: <10149@wpi.wpi.edu> <1990Mar24.192730.20445@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> <2746@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
Reply-To: gwangung@milton.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 19

In article <2746@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> cak3g@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Colin Klipsch) writes:
>In article <1990Mar24.192730.20445@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> topgun@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Chandra Bajpai) writes:
>>In article <10149@wpi.wpi.edu> macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Christopher Silverberg) writes:
>My personal hopes, for rationality and progress, are for Xerox to lose
>against Apple and Apple to lose against HP/Microsoft.  The graphical
>user interface is an inspiring invention, but no one should own it, any
>more than you can own the rights to automatic transmissions or the
>metric system. 

	This is true if and only if the Macintosh graphical interface was
the only way to implement a graphics interface, or if it was the best way by
a very large margin.  I don't think that's the case and that's how Apple
is arguing it.

	Apple has never claimed the GUI as its own; it has claimed the Mac
interface as its own.  The two are not the same.

	Whether or not Apple is justified for pursuing a look and feel case
against Mickeysoft and HP is another question.....