Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL From: SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Apple sues Message-ID: <8804040113.aa03242@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> Date: 4 Apr 88 06:14:00 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 60 Peter da Silva writes: >Subject: Re: BOYCOTT APPLE >In article <1513@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >> But look at other industries. I can't publish a comic book about a man >> who flies, is super strong and can see through walls. It doesn't >> matter what my character's origin is, or what the plots of the stories >> are. That same law might well apply in other cases. > >Sure you can. There are two major players in the comics game, plus a bunch >of smaller companies... If memory serves (and I'm sure it does in this case since I date back to the era in question), there once was a comic character named - *SHAZAM * Captain Marvel. Super powers (check), cape (check), whimppy alter ego (check), "Achilles heel" (check - in his case he could be subdued when he hadn't yet said SHAZAM and become super-duper). He's not around anymore BECAUSE DC Comics sued him out of existence for copyright violation. It's a good analogy, I'd guess (not being a lawyer). You can create all manner of super heroes, but you can't simply "clone" Superman with only superficial differences (different color costume, different way of "changing" from alter ego to super ego *I couldn't resist*. In response to another comment on the subject of Apple's suit: Apple's problem with New Wave is that it is, essentially - contractually if I remember what I read in Apple's court filing - an implementation of Windows 2.03 (which is really what Apple is suing about). According to the trade press, IBM's Presentation Manager (which only IBM and a few beta testers whose "lips are sealed" have actually seen) is essentially Windows 2.03. I seem to recall reading that IBM told developers some months ago to design to Windows specs (implying that resulting programs would be compatible with Presentation Manager or easily transposable into compatible code). That's what makes Apple's suit so interesting, third party developers don't know if, or how much or which way, Presentation Manager may have to be altered to avoid copyright violation. If necessary IBM (and probably Microsoft) can pay for any alterations that must be made. It's not so clear to third party developers that they can afford to invest in software that may have to be completely reworked before it can be sold. So, Apple not only slows down Presentation Manager, but also the arrival of software designed to run in that environment. It appears that Apple wins even if the courts rule that Windows doesn't "look and feel" like a Macintosh in the same sense that Print Master looked and felt like Print Shop. Meanwhile, IBM will work on getting OS/2 and the Presentation Manager to fit into less than 3 Mbytes so there'll be a market for it (if you think it takes ProDOS 16 awhile to get ready to go, wait'll you try Presentation Manager 1.0 on a 286 machine!!!). --------------------- Disclaimer: I like my opinions better than my employer's anyway... (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) ARPA: sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Murphy A. Sewall BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM School of Business Admin. UUCP: ...ihnp4!psuvax1!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL University of Connecticut