Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.micro.atari,net.micro.mac Subject: Re: DRI agrees to change GEM ; why?? Message-ID: <3251@nsc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 12-Oct-85 13:06:51 EDT Article-I.D.: nsc.3251 Posted: Sat Oct 12 13:06:51 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 14-Oct-85 04:24:02 EDT References: <3208@nsc.UUCP> <1196@vax1.fluke.UUCP> <3226@nsc.UUCP> <299@ccivax.UUCP> Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Distribution: net Organization: Cultural Fugue, Ltd. Lines: 66 Xref: watmath net.micro.pc:5579 net.micro.atari:1345 net.micro.mac:2934 In article <299@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes: >I find it rather hard to believe that Apple would really have a case against >DRI. >True, in terms of it's external appearance, the GEM interface looks very >much like the Mac interface. These comments are mutually exclusive.... 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. >But things like binding (install application) >are much different. This also has nothing to do with the visual copyright.... > 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. 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. >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. Can you prove that? Again, if I spend my R&D budget designing a new nifty, and someone else takes a copy of my nifty, redesigns it, and puts me out of 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. >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 GEM had set up an agreement with Apple, they wouldn't be IN this position. They just took. >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. Huh? Apple never put ANY of that stuff in the public domain, and never pretended to. Also, there happens to be a good precedent for public domain stuff -- Emacs. You can still get an old, crufty version of PD emacs if you want it, or you can buy a significantly improved version from CCA or Unipress (or you can hack on GNU, just to be complete). But that has NOTHING to do with what apple is doing... I wish we could keep our facts straight, folks, instead of these purely emotional rantings... -- :From the caverns of the Crystal Cave: Chuq Von Rospach Currently: nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid}!nsc!chuqui Soon to be: ..!sun! Our time is past -- it is a time for men, not magic. Come, let us leave this world to the usurpers and rest our weary bones....