Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site meccts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!dicomed!meccts!ahby
From: ahby@meccts.UUCP (Shane P. McCarron)
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari,net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: DRI agrees to change GEM
Message-ID: <240@meccts.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 12-Oct-85 19:57:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: meccts.240
Posted: Sat Oct 12 19:57:02 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Oct-85 06:30:38 EDT
References: <3208@nsc.UUCP> <87@druhi.UUCP> <1790@saber.UUCP>
Reply-To: ahby@meccts.UUCP (Shane P. McCarron)
Organization: MECC Technical Services, St.Paul, MN
Lines: 28
Xref: watmath net.micro.atari:1357 net.micro.mac:2949
Summary: 

In article <1790@saber.UUCP> turner@saber.UUCP (D'arc Angel @ The Houses of the Holy) writes:
>> >Apple has claimed that GEM copied
>> >"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's
>> >copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and
>> >icons that substantially resemble the Mac.
>> 
>> Is this for real????!!!!!???  How in the world can Apple claim to have a
>> copyright on the "look and feel" of its Macintosh software when it is such a
>> close copy of work done at Xerox Parc?  
>> 
>> I don't have any legal expertise, but it looks like Apple doesn't have a leg
>> to stand on.  I hope that someone with some legal knowledge will comment on
>> this because I don't see how Apple can get away with it.
>> 
>from what i hear (from inside a certain company involved in this) DRI is
>just plain chicken and doesnt want to risk a lawsuit

When I was out at Apple last fall, they told me they had a patent on
that type of interface.  I'm not sure that this is correct, but that's
what they said.  If it is the case, they could certainly claim that
DRI was copying the "look and feel" of the Mac interface.

-- 

Shane P. McCarron
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services

UUCP	ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!ahby