Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!jpm@BNL44.ARPA From: jpm@BNL44.ARPA (John McNamee) Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: Apple suing people, protection of ideas Message-ID: <2171@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 05:24:51 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2171 Posted: Wed Oct 16 05:24:51 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 08:02:55 EDT Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Lines: 57 >From: Brad Templeton > >Does a line of code have to be stolen for an idea to be stolen? Of course it doesn't, but thats OK because copyright laws don't cover ideas. Copyright covers the expression of an idea, which means the code itself. Patents are involved with the protection of the idea itself, and Apple can't claim any patents on work done at Xerox. >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. I will grant Apple may have some claim to the look of MacPaint, but I don't think they have any claim on the windows, menus, dialog boxes, etc. All of that came from Xerox. >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. You are correct that the feel is very different. Anybody who has used both the Mac and GEM machine will quickly see the differences. The look is similar, but I again claim that Apple cannot copyright the look of the desktop since they really didn't invent it. >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". Didn't Xerox invent the trash can? Apple claims they own it, but I'm sure I saw it on the Star. GEM icons are not really like Mac icons. Disk drives get an icon, and there is a trash can, but application icons are quite different. Storing a unique icon for each application is one of the nice things the Mac does (nice in its effect, but horrible in what it does for the speed of the finder). GEM has a predefined set of 25 or so icons that are available to describe an application. All word processors use the same icon, all spreadsheets use the same one, etc. >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. Again, I think it comes down to what they really invented. The world owes Apple a moral debt for popularizing the desktop concept, but they did not invent it and thus we don't owe them a legal debt. The Apple suit is a case of large company picking in a smaller company (DRI was once a big shot, now they are in bad financial shape). If DRI defended itself against the suit the future of GEM would be called into question and no ISV or OEM in their right mind would use it. Two years later DRI may collect damages from Apple, but by that time the company would be bankrupt. DRI had no choice but to go along with Apple, and Apple knew that. -- John P. McNamee decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl44!jpm jpm@BNL44.ARPA