Xref: utzoo misc.legal:4336 comp.sys.ibm.pc:13681 comp.sys.mac:14411 comp.sys.apple:4881 comp.sys.atari.st:8575 comp.sys.hp:591 comp.sys.amiga:16650
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!apollo!mrst!sdti!mjy
From: mjy@sdti.UUCP (Michael J. Young)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.hp,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Apple Challenges HP New Wave, MS-Windows, Potentially OS/2 PM
Message-ID: <249@sdti.UUCP>
Date: 22 Mar 88 16:56:00 GMT
References: <5480@well.UUCP> <5492@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: mjy@sdti.UUCP (0000-Michael J. Young)
Organization: Software Development Technologies, Sudbury MA
Lines: 63
Keywords: Apple Mac HP Microsoft Windows OS/2 New Wave Frivolous Litigation

In article <5492@well.UUCP> rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) writes:
>        12.  Hewlett-Packard sought a license from Apple....  Apple
>declined to grant a license to its Macintosh audiovisual works.
>Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,
>that nonetheless Hewlett-Packard has developed a computer program...
>
>        13....  The similarity between New Wave and the
>Macintosh visual displays and images is so great that even the
>Hewlett-Packard product manager for New Wave in touting the
>product has conceded publicly that New Wave is "similar to the
>Macintosh." 

Although it is certainly undesireable from a user's viewpoint, I'm not
sure I agree that Apple's lawsuit is frivolous and without merit.	

First of all, even though the initial technology on which the Macintosh
user interface is based was developed by Xerox, Apple has certainly added
much to it.  In fact, they've added enough to be granted multiple
copyrights.

Second, HP must have felt that the copyrights were valid, because they
requested a license from Apple.  Then they went ahead and violated the
copyright after a license was denied.  They then publicly described the
product as conforming to the copyrighted 'look and feel'.  I'm not a
lawyer or judge, but if I saw this kind of blatant disregard for a
copyright, I'd be inclined to award damages.

I think the real issue here is whether or not the copyrights are valid.  I
have a philosophical problem with copyrighting 'look and feel'.  But even
given that the copyrights were granted, why didn't Apple grant HP a
license?  Probably because they wanted to charge a royalty, which HP
refused to pay.  What good is a copyright/patent if you can't profit
from it?

If I were HP, I'd be concerned about this suit.  If I were Bill Gates,
though, I wouldn't worry too much.  Microsoft is a defendant mainly
because NewWave requires Windows to run.  Without knowing the content
of the "secret" agreement between Apple and Microsoft, I doubt that a
court would find that Windows violates any copyrights.  My reason
for feeling this way is that it isn't windowing itself that is copyrighted,
but the icon/graphical interface.  Windows doesn't enforce that interface,
it merely enables a user to create and maniplate windows.  It's what the
user (like HP) does with that capability that keeps the lawyers in
business.

With all of that said, I think Apple is doing this for two reasons: 1) to
delay the release of the OS/2 Presentation Manager (just like IBM is
using legal threats to delay 3rd party release of Microchannel clones), and
2) as a test case.  Not many companies are likely to want to give royalties
to Apple.  If Apple wins this suit, I'd be willing to
bet that Apple will happily grant licenses to anyone who wants them, for
a modest royalty.  I'll bet HP would even get one! :-)

HP's strategy, on the other hand, had better be to get the court to
invalidate Apple's copyrights.

I'd be willing to bet that this suit will be settled out of court, with
Apple granting a license to HP, and HP paying a one-time license fee to
Apple (no royalties).
-- 
Mike Young - Software Development Technologies, Inc., Sudbury MA 01776
UUCP     : {decvax,harvard,linus,mit-eddie}!necntc!necis!mrst!sdti!mjy
Internet : mjy%sdti.uucp@harvard.harvard.edu      Tel: +1 617 443 5779