Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!rb From: rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.micro.atari,net.micro.mac Subject: Re: DRI agrees to change GEM ; why?? Message-ID: <299@ccivax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 18:27:57 EDT Article-I.D.: ccivax.299 Posted: Wed Oct 9 18:27:57 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 05:32:52 EDT References: <3208@nsc.UUCP> <1196@vax1.fluke.UUCP> <3226@nsc.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group, Rochester NY Lines: 80 Xref: linus net.micro.pc:5286 net.micro.atari:1245 net.micro.mac:2880 > In article <1196@vax1.fluke.UUCP> pwv@fluke.UUCP (Pat Vilbrandt) writes: > >This is the announcement by Digital Research, Inc. as it appeared on the > >Compuserve GEM SIG on Oct. 1. Seems as though DRI could use some better > >lawers. (Maybe Xerox should sue Apple... :-) > > Anyone who's seen a Xerox (anyone with a dandelion want to comment?) will > be the first to admit similarities, but Apple went very strongly out in > their own direction. The Mac isn't a copy of Xerox' work, it is just > influenced by it. From what the releases say, that isn't as true of the Mac > and GEM (I haven't seen GEM yet, so I won't comment on it). > -- > :From under the bar at Callahan's: Chuq Von Rospach I find it rather hard to believe that Apple would really have a case against DRI. Anyone who has worked with "Object Oriented" systems like the Mac, and "Action Oriented" systems like the PC, Un*x, CP/M... knows how difficult it is to get "Dynamic Run-time Binding" from the "Action Oriented" systems. True, in terms of it's external appearance, the GEM interface looks very much like the Mac interface. But things like binding (install application) are much different. I see Apple's possiveness of "Pull Down Menus" and such as a little like trying to Trademark each letter of the alphabet and expecting to collect royalties. DRI was very cautious about avoiding anything that was declared a "Registered Trademark" by Apple. The even used different terminology. Even the "Pop out" menus on the top line are very different in usage from the Mac. GEM "pops out" the menus if the selector (arrow) even touches a word in the top line ( this is a complaint for some Mac users ). In fact, Creative Computing (Oct 1985) has a review of the ST which cites the differences as "Bugs". Patent, Trademark, and Copywright laws were designed to promote creativity. In fact, the current laws, as used and interpreted by the computer industry are being used to stifle creativity. If a playwright wants to create a script from a novelist, he gets a "royalty agreement" from the novelist. Often, patent rights are "traded" between competing companies. If Apple has the right to sue DRI over "General Appearance", then DRI should be able to sue Apple over the "Concept" of a BIOS/BDOS, along with suing IBM/Microsoft. It's almost like declaring "open, close, read, write, seek, and flush" as trademarks. The basic terminology for these processes has become standard. Without this terminology, software engineering would be "the tower of babel". Apple (Jobs) wanted to dictate the industry standards for this (Icons & windows) generation of computers. They succeded to a point, now they want to collect. It's a little like putting Kermit or FIDO in public domain for a few years, then expecting to collect royalties for those copies distributed as public domain. Suppose whoever came up with the various "word processor" functionalities, used on virtually all "full screen" editors, decided it was time to "pay the piper". Erase your word processor or pay a $5000 fine. English is a language of coined words. When a new concept is developed, we generate unique vocabulary to describe it. We could have called those cute little pictures "Hieroglyphics" instead of "Icons", but no one trademarked the word "Icon" in this context. Must we continue to try and figure out new terms for these "menus that appear from nowhere"? There does need to be some level of "invention protection" for new software concepts, but copyrighting each of the "musical chords" of software is not the way to go about it. If we found "the lost chord" of music, could we copyright it? If Von-Neuman or Turing had patented all of the algorythms used in modern computers, computer software development would have been shackled for twenty years. Kay, Jobs, and the other Mac developers have given a great gift to the industry in the form of an interface with humans that does not require great effort to learn. For this, they should get a Nobel Prize or something, but not the right to sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes up with a usable "mouse and windows" interface! [These opinions are mine alone, and subject to change without notice] Rex B.