Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple:4842 comp.sys.ibm.pc:13608 comp.windows.misc:377
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ncar!ames!pasteur!ji.Berkeley.EDU!kolding
From: kolding@ji.Berkeley.EDU (Eric Koldinger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: Apple Lawsuit (was BOYCOTT APPLE, etc.)
Message-ID: <1797@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu>
Date: 24 Mar 88 05:17:44 GMT
References: <292@unicom.UUCP> <663@csm9a.UUCP> <4283@dandelion.CI.COM>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu
Reply-To: kolding@ji.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Eric Koldinger)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 22
Keywords: Microsoft, HP New Wave, Xerox, Lawsuit

In article <4283@dandelion.CI.COM> carl@orchid.UUCP (Carl A. Dunham) writes:
>This brings up an interesting point.  What exactly does Apple hope to
>gain here?  With DRI, they might have wanted to scare off some
>small-fry that thought they could make some bucks with Mac-clones
>(albeit not many, cf. Atari and Commodore).  With this suit, either
>they win, and User Interface technology is frozen in its tracks (so
>much for "Changing the Way People Think"), or they lose, and their
>"look and feel" legal position is shattered.

I think this is probably what Apple is after.  To establish the
legal limits of how much alike "look and feel" covers (plus maybe slowing
down the introduction of the OS/2 Presentation Manager, and can you
really blame them for wanting to slow that down even more than it already
is?).  It will set important precendents and limits for the interface
people, much the same way that the Intel vs. NEC suit set precedents
for uCode.  Tell me, is anyone boycotting Intel these days?  I didn't really
think so.

		_   /|				Eric
		\`o_O'				kolding@ji.berkeley.edu
  		  ( )     "Gag Ack Barf"	{....}!ucbvax!ji!kolding
   	    	   U