Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!midway!mimsy!mojo!SYSMGR@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Boycott NeXT offerings that include a free copy of Lotus Improv
Message-ID: <0093E631.0895FDE0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>
Date: 18 Oct 90 22:39:44 GMT
References: <123663@linus.mitre.org>,<970@earth.cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (The News System)
Reply-To: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 56

In article <970@earth.cs.utexas.edu>, lhmaddox@cs.utexas.edu (Lawrence H. Maddox  Jr.) writes:

>This is simply not true.  Lotus is not suing everyone that makes a
>product similar to Lotus 1-2-3.  In fact, Lotus is not suing Borland
>over Quattro because you can customize the interface to emulate
>Lotus 1-2-3, but because Borland has used this capability (the
>included emulation of 1-2-3, not the ability to customize) to sell
>the product to current 1-2-3 users.  Lotus's previous suit against
>PaperBack Software was because their product was marketed as a Lotus
>1-2-3 clone.  Quattro Pro, with its included emulation of 1-2-3, is
>also being marketed as a Lotus 1-2-3 clone.  

You haven't seen either product, I gather. Quattro Pro is being marketed as a
superior alternative to Lotus 1-2-3, and you have to delibertly turn on the
Lotus menus to get "Lotus emulation." Quattro Pro does things which 1-2-3
doesn't.

Paperback Software looked like 1-2-3 out of the box, with most enhancements
"buried" within the code, and various menus. 

>However, there have been 1-2-3 look-alikes for much longer than the
>recent law suits seem to indicate, and Lotus never seemed to mind
>much before.  I believe that this can be related to the new Lotus
>product, Improv.  Improv relies *directly* upon the user interface
>for its uniqueness and appeal.  If Lotus were to allow other vendors
>to copy the user interface of Improv as they have with 1-2-3, it
>would severly weaken the advantage of inovation that Improv currently
>has.  I think that this has a great deal to do with why Lotus is
>trying to make a big legal issue:  they wish to set a precedent with
>1-2-3 to protect Improv.

Nope. They wish to discourage a "look-and-feel" of 1-2-3. NeXT-generation
software will have NeXTstep rules for its user interface; before Lotus there
were no user-interface "standards" for the PC world. 

>>about the issue of interface copyright.  I hope you all will read this
>>year's November and May issues of the Communications of the ACM.  An
>>informed and active user community is our only hope for protection
>>against forces of greed.
>
>Not to disillusion you, but this industry is to a great deal driven by
>greed.  Why else would Borland produce a product containing a certain
>feature used explicitly to attract users away from Lotus?

Convenience? Since Borland charges LESS for their product than 1-2-3, I hardly
would accuse them of greed. The 1-2-3 emulation mode (maybe we should think of
this as the same way VT-100 emulation mode is in terminal programs...oops,
don't want to give Digital ideas :-) is a "hook" for people who want to
convert. 

Since Lotus wants a relative monopoly on spreadsheets, their actions are
motivated to increase profits, and raise the level of "fear, uncertainty,
and doubt" to potential purchasers. Practially speaking, it pisses people off
who would like to be able to choose on the basis of services and prices.
Paperback software was selling their product for under $100 bucks. Lotus 1-2-3
very rarely ventured under the $200 dollar mark. Who's into greed?