Xref: utzoo misc.legal:4433 comp.sys.ibm.pc:13947 comp.sys.mac:14646 comp.sys.apple:5049
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!att-ih!pacbell!ames!ncar!gatech!mcnc!decvax!mandrill!neoucom!wtm
From: wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Apple Challenges HP New Wave, MS-Windows, Potentially OS/2 PM
Summary: Pictures on 3/20/88 Infoworld, page 5
Keywords: Apple HP Microsoft Windows OS/2 New Wave Frivolous Litigation
Message-ID: <1064@neoucom.UUCP>
Date: 29 Mar 88 16:19:00 GMT
References: <5480@well.UUCP> <4092@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Lines: 40


The merit of Apples claims about HP copying their environment seems
less to me after having looked that the photos in this week's
Infoworld.  New Wave, as shiped from HP doesn't really look very
much like a MacIntosh desktop

To quote breifly with attribution from the Inforworld article's
sidebar accompanying the photos:...  "HP calls New wave an
`applications environment,' and users can reconfigure the interface
and make it as much like -- or unlike -- the Mac as desired.  A screen
shot of New Wave supplied by Apple is virtually identical to the
Mac Interface HP officials said, but differs greatly from the
default interface HP will supply to users."

It does seem like strectching things a bit for apple.  It is like
saying that MSDOS is a programming environment, and someone may
write a program using msdos system calls that results in a
MacIntosh-like display, thus MSDOS is a violation of Apple's visual
copyright.

As I said previously, what the Apple suit looks like to me is a
shrewd business descission to throw cold water on IBM windowing
software developers.  I suppose that some developers will shelve
their OS/2 plans and continue their MacIntosh development in the
interim.  This would help Apple keep its software lead for a while
longer.  Apple is really just using IBM's well known FUD (Fear
Uncertainty and Doubt) weapon.

Personally, I don't like Apple's business descision.  My office was
making plans to add a MacIntosh II running A/ux; in light of the
Apple suit, I am considering a change to the PS/2 mod 80 or Compaq
386/20 and SCO Xenix.  Actually, at the moment, the Compaq looks
like the best bet since we already have a substantial expense in
XT/AT bus based peripheral devices.  We had been interested in the
Mac II because of its Nubus.  Additionally, I had the oportuninty
to set up an A/ux system in a consulting job, and disovered that
A/ux still has quite a few unfinished corners.  If Apple keeps
behind A/ux, in the next year or two A/ux should be a nice product.

--Bill