Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ptsfa!cpro!asgard
From: asgard@cpro.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Silly IBM lawsuit
Message-ID: <358@cpro.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 12-Sep-87 18:54:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: cpro.358
Posted: Sat Sep 12 18:54:20 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 13-Sep-87 10:02:17 EDT
References: <850@sask.UUCP>
Organization: CompuPro/VIASYN Corporation, Hayward, CA
Lines: 48
Keywords: IBM DRI GEM Apple Mac

in article <850@sask.UUCP>, coleman@sask.UUCP (Geoff Coleman @ College of Engineering) says:
[...]
>> I wonder what Apple with have to say about the Apple II -- or is
>> that the "Apple Eye Eye"
> 	For some reason this reminds mean about a law suit that 
> Apple launched a couple of years ago over the use of a garbage can 
> (somehow appropriate for Apple) as an Icon by another company. As I
> recall they actually won that lawsuit (aren't lawyers wonderful).

Not correct.  The suit was about Digital Research's GEM Desktop version 1.1
and earlier.  It seemed that this highly innovative software product also used
some of the gadgets that looked like the Macintosh gadgets (like the trashcan
and the overlapping windows and the sliders and...).

Apple then filed suit claiming 'Look-and-Feel' violation.  This case never
went to trial.  Digital Research settled for an undisclosed sum and a rewrite
under the supervision of Apple to remove the offending code.  This, in my
opinion, seriously crippled the utility of GEM forever.  Fortunately CompuPro
still has their copy of 1.1 so at least I can get my fix if I feel like
inflicting icons on myself without the excessive pain of the damaged 'later'
versions.

The only reason DRI settled under these draconian terms was Apple had the cash
to wait it out and DRI did not.  If only they appealed to the community for
help/boycotts against these (perhaps immoral) Apple tactics (Apple had no
intention of supporting the icon interface on IBM compatibles, therefore they
really had no standing to speak of) then DRI would have had the visible sup-
port that would have shown this 'look-and-feel' nonsense for what it is.

Now the LAF beast is rearing its ugly head in other quarters too i.e. Lotus.

> When does something become non trade markable in the U.S.

I do not know.  My gut feeling is trademark is just a contractual arrangement
between a manufacturer and the buying public that is in force until the
manufacturer discontinues the product or the trademark is no longer protected
against infringement.  I should refer you to the Kimberly-Clarke 'Kleenex'
case for precedent.

> Geoff Coleman                         | BITNET: Coleman@sask
> College of Engineering                | UUCP: {utcsri,ihnp4}!sask!skul!geoff
> University of Saskatchewan            | Compserve: 76515,1513  just a number 
> Saskatoon, Saskatchewan               | voice: (306) 966-5415

-- 
"To prevent having to tell fools to RTFM don't let on you WTFM to begin with."
J.R. Stoner	asgard@cpro.UUCP    asgard@wotan.UUCP
P.S. I help CompuPro make computers.  They do not help me make my opinions.