Xref: utzoo misc.legal:4357 comp.sys.ibm.pc:13739 comp.sys.mac:14450 comp.sys.apple:4922 comp.sys.atari.st:8602 comp.sys.hp:602 comp.sys.amiga:16710
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!itsgw!imagine!pawl15.pawl.rpi.edu!jesup
From: jesup@pawl15.pawl.rpi.edu (Randell E. Jesup)
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: <586@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU>
Date: 26 Mar 88 05:40:54 GMT
References: <5480@well.UUCP> <5492@well.UUCP> <249@sdti.UUCP>
Sender: news@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU
Reply-To: beowulf!lunge!jesup@steinmetz.UUCP
Organization: RPI Public Access Workstation Lab - Troy, NY
Lines: 51
Keywords: Apple Mac HP Microsoft Windows OS/2 New Wave Frivolous Litigation

In article <249@sdti.UUCP> mjy@sdti.UUCP (0000-Michael J. Young) writes:
>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.

	Not only the technology, but also the 'look and feel' (see Xerox
Star).  Not the same, but similar.  Also, Apple was not 'granted'
copyrights, they just filed copyrights.  Said copyrights have not been
tested in court.

>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.

	Maybe HP just wanted to avoid paying to defend in a law suit?  Asking
for license is NOT an admittal of a copyrights validity, or of infringment.

>  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?

	More likely Apple refused to consider it.  Nothing says you have to
license your properties to potential competitors.  Also, I think Apple was
hunting for bear.

>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

	Probably.

>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! :-)

	Yup, and there's a tooth fairy out there too.  :-)  I don't
believe that for a second, it would be highly counterproductive.  I would
suspect that they hope for something that helps limit the amount that
other companies can do in the area, as well as frightening developers that are
porting Mac programs to other envirionments.

     //	Randell Jesup			      Lunge Software Development
    //	Dedicated Amiga Programmer            13 Frear Ave, Troy, NY 12180
 \\//	beowulf!lunge!jesup@steinmetz.UUCP    (518) 272-2942
  \/    (uunet!steinmetz!beowulf!lunge!jesup) BIX: rjesup

(-: The Few, The Proud, The Architects of the RPM40 40MIPS CMOS Micro :-)