Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!dptg!ulysses!andante!mit-eddie!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!lhmaddox
From: lhmaddox@cs.utexas.edu (Lawrence H. Maddox  Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Boycott NeXT offerings that include a free copy of Lotus Improv
Message-ID: <970@earth.cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 90 20:37:40 GMT
References: <123663@linus.mitre.org>
Organization: Dept of Computer Sciences, UTexas, Austin
Lines: 71

In article <123663@linus.mitre.org> ramsdell@mitre.org writes:
>Enclosed are some corrections to my initial plead, and pointers to
>well thought out papers on the issue of interface copyrights.
>
>Lotus is trying to make it illegal to write software even partially
>compatible in its behavior with existing software.  If you write a
>program that does a similar job, they will sue you.  The threat is
>real; Lotus is currently suing Borland over Quattro not because it
>implements the same interface, but because you can customize the
>interface to emulate Lotus 1-2-3!

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.  The command interface
used by 1-2-3 has been complimented many times (not to say that I
think it is any good) by the press, and can be considered important
to the product.  Allowing other vendors to provide the *exact*
same interface simply allows them to ride the success of Lotus.

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.

>By distributing promotional copies of Lotus Improv, NeXT Inc. is
>aiding and abiding a company that, in my opinion, engages in
>monopolistic practices.  I urge you to refuse to buy NeXT offerings
>that include a free copy of Lotus Improv.  In practice, this means
>simply waiting until 1991 to place your order.  If we do not take a
>stand now and make our concerns clear to the NeXT management, they may
>be the next to sue.
>Some of the responses to my initial plead revealed enormous ignorance

And what if Improv were to be bundled forever??  Would you advocate
never purchasing a NeXT??

>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?

>P.S.  To the best of my knowledge, The MITRE Corporation does not have
>a policy on interface copyright, so the opinions expressed within do
>not represent the official policy of my company.

Ren

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Disclaimer:  nothing I say REALLY means anything anyway....

 primary: ------------------------------------> lhmaddox@cs.utexas.edu
 secondary:      auschs!longhorn.austin.ibm.com!lhmaddox@cs.utexas.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------