Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!philip
From: philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough)
Subject: Re: A2R&D vs. Apple
Message-ID: <1991Apr17.230900.13049@utstat.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Statistics
References: <108667@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1991 23:09:00 GMT

In article <108667@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> meekins@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (timothy lee meekins) writes:

[ more on Apple vs HP/Microsoft ], [quotes me,etc...]

>I don't understand why so reecently people have been against Apple for their
>suit. I think Apple has every right to that suit.

It is not only recently that people have become distressed over these
"look and feel" lawsuits. People can always sue. The question is whether or
not this  helps society. Count the number of lawyers in the US and do the
same in Japan, and you will see why the obvious is happening.

>In conclusion, I believe Apple has EVERY RIGHT to sue Microsoft and HP
>since they blatantly have copied what Apple has done. More recently,
>dozens of other companies have developed windowing systems which show that
>there are excellent alternatives to Apple's system. So, why did Microsoft/
>HP create a carbon copy of Apple's? It certainly isn't becuase it's
>the only way to do it.

I'm not a lawyer. As I pointed out, Apple has the right to sue whomever
they wish. They seem to be good at it. Other companies have used this
tactic in order to intimidate competitors. In the end it typically fails
to help anyone. As for Windows3.0 being a carbon copy of the Finder, I
simply can't agree. I assume Apple does not either, otherwise people
would not be claiming the Finder to be superior to Windows 3.0 . One 
point you might think about. Overlapping windows have been around a long
time, as have mice,etc...Bringing a product to the masses means you are
good at marketing. As you noted Xerox was not. Neither are mathematicians
who develop many algorithms used by commercial software vendors. Do you
want a society of successful marketing types or one that is capable of
developing new ideas? If it's the latter, then I would strongly suggest
you start pushing for scientists and engineers to have more say over what
happens than accountants and lawyers. You really have to wonder about a
society that rewards its lawyers and bean counters far more than its
researchers and engineers.

Philip McDunnough
philip@utstat.utoronto.ca