Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!george From: george@mnetor.UUCP (George Hart) Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.micro.atari,net.micro.mac Subject: Re: DRI agrees to change GEM ; why?? (long) Message-ID: <2416@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Thu, 17-Oct-85 10:14:21 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.2416 Posted: Thu Oct 17 10:14:21 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 12:14:46 EDT References: <299@ccivax.UUCP> <3251@nsc.UUCP> Reply-To: george@mnetor.UUCP (George Hart) Distribution: net Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 106 Xref: utcs net.micro.pc:5594 net.micro.atari:1377 net.micro.mac:3068 In article <3251@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >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. There is no such thing as a "visual copyright" per se. Copyright protection can be applied to the "form" of a work (for example, the actual shape of the icons) but offers (in its current form) little protection for software where the algorithms and the concepts behind the interface are the valuable commodities. Copyright law can be semi-effective for things like ROM code (eg. Apple vs. Franklin, Apple II ROMs) but as people such as Compaq have shown, you can still get around it. >> 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. The problem is that there is no effective protection for algorithms in software. Patent law expressly excludes them (unless you created special purpose hardware to implement them) and copyright law only protects their "form" (be it human readable or machine readable). That's why Compaq (in the IBM PC world) can rewrite the IBM ROM code without fear of retribution. There is merit in what you say, however. Software designers should be able to profit from their designs. But not at the expense of unfairly limiting competition or stifling "advancement of the art". The problem is that there is a very fine line between them, one which legal people in several countries (notably Taiwan) having been trying to pin down. >>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. Apple is proving it for us. Granted Apple was responsible for some neat innovations (like the Quickdraw ROMs), and *appearance* of some of the icons, etc. But consider that: 1. It has all been done before. 2. GEM is similiar but is not (by any means) a complete ripoff of the Mac. As far designing niftys goes, if someone can redesign your nifty (which includes porting to radically differing architectures, supporting varying hardware devices, etc, writing *all* code from scratch) and put you out of business, that's life. Don't expect everyone else to sit still while you rest on your laurels. It is your business and you have a responsibility (to yourself) to continue to innovate and keep the "nifty redesigners" off-balance (BTW, this is in the first person because the original posting was, nothing personal :-). This is essentially what Visicorp *did not* do and why 1-2-3 is really the only spreadsheet you hear about now. >If GEM had set up an agreement with Apple, they wouldn't be IN this >position. They just took. Personally, I don't think DRI *took* anything they didn't have a right to. But despite the moralistic/quasi-legal argument I have presented, the unfortunate business facts are probably, that if the case had gone to court, it was a no-win for DRI: 1. While in court, DRI probably would been prevented from marketing GEM (even if eventual decision in their favour). 2. Apple probably threatened never to send any work to DRI again and DRI's performance hasn't been earth shattering lately. 3. The publicity would not have helped. 4. Court costs would have been sustantial. 5. DRI might have lost after all. Apple is not a villain. They are a business trying to protect their interests and this time they got away with scare tactics. But Apple is no saint either. The opinions expressed in this article are those of an interested layman and as such, are probably only have a curiosity value. They certainly don't reflect the opinions of my employer. -- Regards, George Hart, Computer X Canada Ltd. UUCP: {allegra|decvax|duke|floyd|linus|ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!george BELL: (416)475-8980