Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:14065 comp.sys.mac:14744 comp.sys.apple:5118 comp.sys.atari.st:8831 comp.sys.hp:676 comp.sys.amiga:17159
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!td2cad!jreece
From: jreece@td2cad.intel.com (John Reece )
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: <773@td2cad.intel.com>
Date: 3 Apr 88 20:44:37 GMT
References: <8643@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: jreece@td2cad.UUCP (John Reece )
Distribution: na
Organization: Intel TD, Santa Clara CA
Lines: 50

In article <8643@eddie.MIT.EDU> zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) writes:
>Balderdash to both these arguments. Apple's lawsuit is appealing to
>me because it states that if you don't have the basic guts to try to
>do Apple one better, then you deserve to be sued. Microsoft certainly
>have the talent and the wherewithal to create a next-generation user
>interface tool and not a "derivative work." Why don't they use it?
>Apple's intellectual property rights would not then be violated and we
>the users might be much better off.
>
>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. 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.
>
>"Originality, it's not just a good idea, it's the law."
>	-- Joe Biden never said this
>
>-Zigurd


The problem with Apple going after "derivative" interface technologies
is that it derived so much of the look and feel of its user interface 
from more expensive engineering workstations developed by other
companies, such as the Xerox Star.  I've read numerous articles and
books by major players at Apple which frankly admit this, and I find Apple's
righteousness extremely hypocritical.  

As far as Apple using the suit to simply create FUD (Fear, Uncertainty
and Doubt) in the minds of IBM and HP developers, I should point out
that this is one of the first look-and-feel lawsuits where the defendant
has the resources to defend itself in a lengthy court battle.  Most of
the other cases have been big company vs. little company suits, such as
Lotus vs. Paperback Software, or Apple vs. Digital Research, where the
smaller company had to settle simply because it couldn't afford to
fight.

Finally, this discussion seems to be suffering from a lack of specifics.
Does anyone out there have any specifics in a laundry-list format of 
what exactly Apple considers the unique and copyrightable features of
its interface, and how Windows violates them?  For that matter, how do
these unique features compare with those of the Xerox Star? What license
arrangements did Apple make with Xerox?  What exactly was covered in the
Apple-Microsoft license agreement in 1985?  

John Reece