Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!amdahl!JUTS!duts!kls30
From: kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac and Amiga (Games--Macintosh vs A500)
Message-ID: <039O02wo06iF01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Date: 18 Mar 91 15:50:41 GMT
References: <7816@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <1991Mar14.052507.19830@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <7906@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <1991Mar14.233243.29563@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <7920@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: netnews@ccc.amdahl.com
Reply-To: kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 73

In article <7920@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes:
>[stuff deleted]
>>>copyright on look and feel.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Apple has no copyright on 'look and feel.' It's an impossible concept.
>>Like copyrighting the Look-And-Feel of Mac Donalds. Burger King, 
>>Hardees, Roy Rogers(bought by Hardees), etc would be out of business.
>>
>We'll see what the judge rules.  Paperback already lost to Lotus on look and
>feel.

But Apple stole code from Xerox.  If anyone owns look and feel it is Xerox
and Xerox lost the first round to Apple.   Paperback used the same command
structure as Lotus, so look and feel here is different from look and feel
of Windows, HP NewWave.

>>Apple has the right to protect their OS code, that's it. 

I agree.
>>
>Again, we'll see.  Anyone can write code.  It takes a little more to do it
>with a good interface.  NeXT has a great interface.  They innovated,
                         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
True it's a great interface (I own a NeXT).  But Sun used Display
Postscript(DP)  before NeXT even DEC has Display Postscript.  Sun using
DP wasn't accepted real well so the migrated to X but they still have some
support for DP.

>Microsoft didn't.
>
>[stuff deleted]
>> Look. If you invented the automobile, it's perfectly ok for me
>>to make a machine that performs the same functions exactly, as long
>>as I don't steal your blue prints, disassemble your engine to find
>>out how it works.
>
>Cars aren't computers.

True, but look and feel is ridiculous.  If Apple keeps it up they will
have problems.  Look at IBM and PCs.  The only way the Mac will become as
widely accepted as the PC is if someone makes clones.

>
>Read that out loud a few times.  Most of the work of computer programs is on 
>the interface.  Ask a programmer.  This is the work that should be protected.
>Most of the work of a car is engineering.  Ditto for the Mac.

The actual code that makes up the interface but not the interface itself.
If I want a work alike interface and write my own code without looking at
your code, what's the problem?  Apple is afraid of the competition plain
and simple.  What if someone had been able to patent the H shift pattern
for manual transmissions.

I mean, how the hell can you patent the way one window overlaps another.
Not the code but the look.  This is totally crazy.

>>
>>The only way I see Apple's claim as valid is if they:
>>1) Supplied source code to Microsoft on how to implement a GUI
>>2) Microsoft disassembled Apple roms, and copied the algorithms

I agree.  MS made a mistake by Lic. stuff from Apple in the first place.
They should have let them sue 6 years ago.

>
>What is the weather like on your planet?

Just look at the news, or do you get it on Mars or what????
--
/*  -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers.    */
/*      For I can only express my own opinions.              */
/*                                                           */
/*   Kent L. Shephard  : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com   */