Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site ccvaxa
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari
Subject: Re: DRI, GEM, and Visicalc
Message-ID: <2800012@ccvaxa>
Date: Mon, 21-Oct-85 10:35:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.2800012
Posted: Mon Oct 21 10:35:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Oct-85 06:19:17 EDT
References: <403@ssc-bee.UUCP>
Lines: 47
Nf-ID: #R:ssc-bee.UUCP:-40300:ccvaxa:2800012:000:2495
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece    Oct 21 09:35:00 1985


> If Apple's case against DRI is so good, I would think the case for
> Visicalc against its competitors is even better.

> The reason I bring this up, is that I think the Apple lawsuits (legally
> justified or not) are bad for the consumer.  The spreadsheets now are
> vastly superior to the original visicalc.  I doubt this would have
> happened if Visicalc could have suppressed competition.  /* Written
> 4:28 pm  Oct 17, 1985 by eve@ssc-bee.UUCP in ccvaxa:net.micro.atari */
----------
Apples versus oranges.  Visicalc's claim might be better (depends on a
lot of things: whether they tried to protect it (by registration or
copyright notice), whether it was protectable (it looks a lot like a
non-automated spreadsheet),  how close the clones were (same keystrokes?
same interface actions?)) or it might not.  The important question
isn't whether they had a better claim but whether they pursued it.
Copyrights are not enforced by any agency, they're enforced by the
holder.  I think Apple would have been a lot better off NOT pursuing the
GEM similarities (suppose they had told DRI, "You can go ahead as-is,
but you have to say 'Desktop interface copyright Apple Computers.'
at the bottom of the screen"?).

If we had a real standard for a visual interface we would all be a lot
better off.  There would be a big market in porting it to other
environments.  It would gain in respectability.  Instead everybody has
to try to be enough different that they don't look, at a casual glance,
like a Mac (or, presumably, anybody else).  That's a waste of effort.
Differentiate by features, not by feel.

Apple also ignores another possibility.  DRI may spend some time
thinking about the interface and come up with enough improvement that
in a couple of years Apple has to license features from DRI.  After
all, DRI is selling across markets and is much better positioned to
become a standard.  Consider the relative number of PC-clones and of
Macintoshes.  One would think that Apple's best shot at penetrating
the business market might have been to get DRI to license the exact
Mac interface.  Then in six months, with a significant number of
PCs running GEM, the Apple marketing people could have come to
corporate accounts saying "Look, your people already know how to use
our interface.  Why not slip our 68000 behind it -- smaller footprint,
higher resolution screen, and a cheap network for department-wide
laser sharing."

-- 
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece