Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:13905 comp.sys.mac:14598 comp.sys.apple:5016 comp.sys.atari.st:8716 comp.sys.hp:646 comp.sys.amiga:16959
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!apr!las
From: las@apr.UUCP (Larry Shurr)
Newsgroups: 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: <412@apr.UUCP>
Date: 30 Mar 88 18:52:11 GMT
References: <8643@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: las@apr.UUCP (Larry Shurr)
Distribution: na
Organization: APR, Columbus, OH
Lines: 47

In article <8643@eddie.MIT.EDU> zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) writes:
>VisiOn, Generra, and Sun's window systems are all examples of user
>interface technologies which are not derivative works and Apple has no
>problem with them. 

Are you truly privy to Apple's policies regarding the legal positions it
wishes to promulgate for it's own interest?  Do you participate in the
decision-making carried out by Apple's highest levels of management?  If
you don't, what other souces of information do you draw upon to make this
statement?  I concede that you may be right, but are you stating verifi-
able facts or your own opinion.  Excuse me, but the attitude you seem to
convey is much like that of many others you criticize in this posting -
i.e, "It's so because I say so!  My opinions are better than other peoples
facts!"  That message, intentional or not, has pervaded this discussion.

>                    And Apple's work is sufficiently different both in
>look and in capability from Xerox's SmallTalk browser that, apart from
>Apple's claim to "broad licences" from Xerox, there is no need for
>legal struggles in that area. Except for Apple's timing, which seems
>calculated to further increase the FUD factor surrounding OS/2, I see
>no reason why Apple should not go after gratuitous copying when equal
>and better alternatives are available.

Despite your beliefs regarding Apple's right to litigate the "look and
feel" issue on principle, you seem to be conceding that Apple might, in
any case, still be carrying out a sort of "preemptive strike" against
the (mythical?, alledged?) Presentation Manager for the purpose of impeding
its (mythical?, alledged?) introduction to the marketplace.

I have a lot of doubts about this whole "look and feel" issue and I don't
support Apple's position in this matter, though I still haven't resolved
it to my own satisfaction (I could be convinced to change my mind - but
not by abuse, so send all flames to your lower orifice).  I definitely don't
like predatory, anti-competitive practices such as trying to litigate
one's potential competitors into submission/out-of-business (although I'm
not expecting Apple to do this either to HP or to Microsoft, instead I
believe that we'll probably see a "mutually agreeable settlement" out of
this - those most likely to be hurt by this are the small developers who
have transferred ideas from Mac to non-Mac systems through their porting
their products to new machines).

regards, Larry
-- 
"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."
- Oscar Wilde, James Whistler or George Bernard Shaw depending on who you ask
Name: Larry A. Shurr (cbosgd!osu-cis!apr!las or try {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbcp1!las)
Disclaimer: The above is not necessarily the opinion of APR or any APR client.