Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ncar!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hoptoad!gnu
From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Adobe flagellating PostScript trademark
Message-ID: <4240@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 25 Mar 88 12:33:26 GMT
Followup-To: comp.windows.news,comp.lang.postscript
Organization: Grasshopper Group in San Francisco
Lines: 41

[I originally posted this to comp.windows.news,comp.text -- I had
forgotten that comp.lang.postscript existed, too!     -- John]

We got a mailing today from Adobe Systems, Inc (the originators of
PostScript) that complains because we are calling our NeWS port
a "full and complete PostScript interpreter".  They say, and I quote:
"The interpreter included in your system is licensed to you from Sun
and is not, therefore, a PostScript interpreter."

They go on to say that PostScript is a trademark for interpreters
as well as for a page description language.

They also mention that "It would be an improper use of our trademark
and a factual misrepresentation to refer to a third party interpreter
as using the PostScript page description language if the interpreter
uses a language which differs therefrom, e.g. which is either a subset
(uses less than all the PostScript language commands) or a superset
(uses more than the PostScript language commands) of the PostScript
page description language".

However, in the prospectus from their public stock offerring of
August 13, 1987, they said, "Since one of the company's goals is to
promote the PostScript language as a standard for the representation of
the printed page, the company placed the PostScript language in the
public domain and the company therefore derives no revenue from the use
of the PostScript language by third parties."

According to the above definition, either the Apple LaserWriter or the
LaserWriter Plus does not contain a PostScript interpreter, since they
have different sets of language commands, and Adobe thinks
sub/supersets are not PostScript.  Also, the PostScript interpreter in
my original LaserWriter has, I suspect, at least as many bugs as NeWS,
as far as meeting the specs in the PostScript language reference
manual.  It is clear to me that if Adobe's products don't pass the test of
what is really "PostScript", the test is worthless and cannot be used to
judge whether NeWS is PostScript.

Comments from the peanut gallery?
-- 
{pyramid,ptsfa,amdahl,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu			  gnu@toad.com
		"Watch me change my world..." -- Liquid Theatre