Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!oliveb!sun!morocco!landauer From: landauer%morocco@Sun.COM (Doug Landauer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Mac "Look and Feel" vs DRI Message-ID: <11824@sun.uucp> Date: Wed, 21-Jan-87 17:12:08 EST Article-I.D.: sun.11824 Posted: Wed Jan 21 17:12:08 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 22-Jan-87 03:24:21 EST References: <4740006@hpvcla.HP.COM> <6640003@hpfclp.HP.COM> Sender: news@sun.uucp Reply-To: landauer@sun.UUCP (Doug Landauer) Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View Lines: 28 In article <6640003@hpfclp.HP.COM> diamant@hpfclp.HP.COM (John Diamant) wrote, in response to Dave Neff's article: > For some reason, under certain circumstances, reverse engineering is > considered acceptable (hardware clones of machines), and possibly UNIX > clones. In other cases, it is not, such as pull down menus that Apple > managed to patent (or otherwise protect -- I don't know the details). > I don't really understand the criterion used to determine whether it is > O.K. or not. No one does. In Apple's case, it was DRI's "GEM" software that was changed because of this consideration. This dispute never went to court, so it doesn't have much bearing on whether the Mac's "look and feel" is patented or whatever. (DRI just didn't want the expense of going to court at a critical time in GEM's product lifetime and in their cash flow situation.) One court case that might have relevance was the one brought by the creators of Pacman against an imitator (but here, I don't know the details.) To make this relevant to MINIX (and Unix clones in general), my opinion is that "look and feel" is irrelevant in the case of Unix clones because the versions of Unix that are being cloned have no screen oriented utilities. "Look and Feel" is a trademark of the Mitchell Brothers, of San Francisco. -- Doug Landauer Sun's Net: landauer@morocco Phone: 415 691-7655 ARPANET (aka DDN): landauer@sun.com UUCP: {amdahl, decwrl, hplabs, seismo, ...}!sun!landauer