Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!oliveb!pyramid!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!darryl
From: darryl@ism780c.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Revenge of the Apple Lawyers
Message-ID: <6240@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-May-87 21:02:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780c.6240
Posted: Mon May 11 21:02:07 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 14-May-87 04:34:42 EDT
References: <6154@dartvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: darryl@ism780c.UUCP (Darryl Richman)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica CA
Lines: 50

in Article 2843 of comp.sys.mac merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) writes:
>I heard the best rumour today.
>
>According to some magazines, Microsoft paid Apple some under-the-table money
>in order to use the Macintosh "look-and-feel" in it's Microsoft Windows
>product.  (No, that's not the rumour.)
>
>Well, if you're up on the IBM world, IBM has announced it's new machines and
>it's new operating system, OS/2, for it's new machines.  Microsoft will build
>it and will also market a version for other AT-class PCs.  One of the better
>parts of OS/2 is "The Presentation Manager" which gives you an almost
>Macintosh-like environment.  From the articles I've seen (and the pictures in
>the papers) it is based heavily on Microsoft Windows.

I've just done some investigation of this subject for a class, and while I'm
not a lawyer and we're obviously working from a speculative base without
much information, you're right--this is facinating.  With the recent decision
in the Broderbund case, there is a precedent for copyrighting menus and input
specifications as an audiovisual work.  Furthermore, Apple may have other
grounds for a copyright suit if MS Windows "encourages" the programmer to
follow the same kind of skeleton that Apple "suggests" Mac programmers use.
The Jaslow case of last year allows the structure of a program to be
copyrighted as a literary work.  (I know that copyright is supposed to
protect the expression and not the underlying idea, but the courts have
been giving very liberal interpretation as to what is copyrightable.)

On the other hand, IBM is **very** big, and they have an army of lawyers.  This
can make a tremendous difference in the kind of justice meeted out.  Witness
the way IBM chewed up and spat out the Justice Dept., as well as CDC 15 years
ago.  Why would Apple want to spend all that money they have in the bank on
fees?  Besides, it would appear that Microsoft is the culprit here;  they
stole Apple's property and sold it to IBM.  While MS is no small pickin's,
they're much more to Apple's scale.  If Apple could get an injunction against
distribution, it would hang up IBM's delivery.

Or, Apple could just forget it.  Under trademark law, the owner is required
to fight to keep his trademark.  Not so with a copyright;  it remains in force
regardless of how well it has been defended in the past.  Apple may decide to
opt for selective justice, since MS is one of the biggest software suppliers
to the Mac and the ][.  How would you call it?

"The first thing we'll do, let's kill all the lawyers."
		-- William Shakespeare


	    --Darryl Richman, INTERACTIVE Systems Corp.
	    ...!cca!ima\
			>-!ism780c!darryl
	    ...!sdcrdcf/
	    The views expressed above are my opinions only.