Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site enmasse.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!mroddy From: mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) Newsgroups: net.micro.atari Subject: Re: DRI agrees to change GEM ; why?? Message-ID: <482@enmasse.UUCP> Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 09:51:39 EDT Article-I.D.: enmasse.482 Posted: Fri Oct 18 09:51:39 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 21-Oct-85 04:57:37 EDT References: <3208@nsc.UUCP> <1196@vax1.fluke.UUCP> <3226@nsc.UUCP> <299@ccivax.UUCP> <3251@nsc.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Enmasse Computer Corp., Acton, Mass. Lines: 73 [] Chuq makes these assertions twice now... > .... The case was specifically for the > visual copyright, so looking too much like the Mac was exactly what Apple > was (deservedly) upset about. If you spend 25 man years making someone, and > someone else borrows your design, does it in 5 many years, charges less, > and puts you out of business, wouldn't you be upset? Business needs to be > able to protect its R&D or R&D simply won't get done. > 1) Actually, the case was for something more ambiguous than the "visual copyright", it was for the "look and feel" of the MAC interface. 2) Nowhere has Apple alleged that DRI "borrowed the MAC design." 3) Previously Chuq claimed that the MAC interface was 10 man years, while GEM represented 1 year. Now its 25 to 5. I personnaly don't have the actual figures, I suspect Chuq doesn't either. However, GEM is not a "rip-off" of MAC software. (It does provide a similar user interface, the software, its OS interface, and its programmers interface are all unique to GEM.) 4) Puts Apple out of business? What? 5) Apple's R&D investment is protected. MAC software is incompatible with GEM software and vice versa. GEM is not going to replace the MAC window environment. Aggresive pricing strategies by Atari and Commodore may indeed hurt Apple's low end business, as IBM has damaged their share of the high end market, but this has nothing to do with GEM. > Why? If I was the first to design an algorithm and got protection for it, > I'd expect to be able to protect it.... If I invented an alphabet, I'd sure > want royalties for it... That is an easy statement to make, I'd love to see > you back it up with a good reason. > Nowhere has Apple alleged that DRI has misused copyrighted algorithms. > business, how in the hell was that creative? That is what apple is trying > to prevent -- if they wrote GEM to be better than Mac, fine -- but if all > they did was take what Mac developed and carry it across, that is frankly > illegal. Well fine, GEM is better than MAC, and, once again, while the visual interface is indeed similar, it was not a question of "take what MAC developed and carry it across", Apple doesn't claim this, and it just ain't true. > > NOTHING to do with what apple is doing... I wish we could keep our facts > straight, folks, instead of these purely emotional rantings... > -- Amen. And now some allegory. Copyrighting the "look and feel" of software is somewhat like trying to copyright the style and form of a book or painting. Imagine that Jackson Pollack attempted to copyright abstract expressionism, or that James Joyce copyrighted stream of consciousness in a novel. Clearly it is desireable to protect source code and executable image- the expression of the work and investment in software development- but patenting style is absurd. Finally, the MAC interface is stylistically a direct descendant of work done by Xerox, that is in the public domain (or at least Xerox has made no effort to protect it.) And there are other related workstation windowing environments around (say on Suns and Appollos and stuff over at Bell.) Apple hasn't even a clear claim to being the originator of the "look and feel" that they are protecting. -- Mark Roddy Net working, Just reading the news. (harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!mroddy)