Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.misc:9637 comp.sys.mac.system:3571
Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!jp48+
From: jp48+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan Pace)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows'
Message-ID: <obshH3W00WB7EOeklM@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 17 Mar 91 02:30:27 GMT
Organization: Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 25


   Since Mr. Strobl would like to hear an argument why the original version of
windows is a "slavish copy", I'll give him one.

   The original version of windows, which Apple did not file suit against, was
part of a licensing agreement with Apple.  So, if you want to argue that it was
an imitation of the Mac, it was.  If you want to argue it wasn't since they had
legal agreements to produce it, it wasn't.  You decide.

   Apple filed suit because MS tried to re-engineer the parts that Apple
wouldn't let them use.  As I understand it, MS isn't able to produce any
evidence that they used a clean room in their development.  Apple contends
that MS examined the codes and tried to massage them enough to _claim_ their
own creative process went into them.  Naturally they had to work around the
many DOS systems on the market, but they started from Apple code, not a blank
sheet (Apple's contention, not my statement).

   Personally, using Windows is not as easy as using the Mac.  I've never
programmed either, so I won't labor that point.  It seems to have been beaten
to death already.

Jon Pace

WARNING: My veiws contain backward messages that may give you the wrong idea
that I care.