Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (MU) 9/23/84; site CheopsOnYarra.OZ
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!munnari!mungunni!CheopsOnYarra!kvk@ihlpm.UUCP (Kevin)
From: kvk@ihlpm.UUCP (Kevin)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: DRI agrees to change GEM ; why??
Message-ID: <239@CheopsOnYarra.OZ>
Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 00:03:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: CheopsOn.239
Posted: Tue Oct 22 00:03:22 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Oct-85 08:01:04 EDT
References: <3208@nsc.UUCP> <1196@vax1.fluke.UUCP> <3226@nsc.UUCP> <299@ccivax.UUCP> <3251@nsc.UUCP>
Sender: root@CheopsOnYarra.OZ
Distribution: net
Organization: Pyramid Technology Aust., Melbourne VIC
Lines: 34

> 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 n