Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site looking.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!looking!brad From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: net.micro,net.micro.mac Subject: Re: Apple suing people, protection of ideas Message-ID: <438@looking.UUCP> Date: Mon, 14-Oct-85 01:12:04 EDT Article-I.D.: looking.438 Posted: Mon Oct 14 01:12:04 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 15-Oct-85 09:45:07 EDT References: <429@imsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 28 Xref: watmath net.micro:12351 net.micro.mac:2954 Summary: I'm no Apple fan, but I am not so sure it is a good idea to jump to conclusions here. What's the essence of this issue? When GEM came out, it was clear to everybody, and even openly said, that it was a "mac-like" interface. Now, if this is the case, doesn't Apple deserve some reward (aside from flattery) for making something that somebody else copied? Does a line of code have to be stolen for an idea to be stolen? Now Apple is persuing this in the only way the law really provides, which is copyright. It's the same sort of thing as Pacman. The owners of Pacman copyrighted the image of the Pacman - you can copyright (and sometimes trademark) pictures. The sued clone makers for using that same image. Now it's clear that the GEM window is an attempt to emulate the Mac screen, so that's what they're going after. So they win on "look" although probably not on feel. Now of course Xerox is another story. But the Mac doesn't use the same sort of pictures as Xerox products like the star, and the Mac certainly wasn't claiming to be "like a Xerox". Now if Apple tries persuing claims to general ideas like "windows", "menus" and "pointing" that is another story. Their pull-down menu patent won't really survive. But this doesn't mean that you can try and copy their screen and not have to pay them some due. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473