Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!sungoddess!vita From: vita@sungoddess.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.windows.misc Subject: Re: Apple Lawsuit (was BOYCOTT APPLE, etc.) Message-ID: <10378@steinmetz.ge.com> Date: 12 Apr 88 18:12:51 GMT References: <292@unicom.UUCP> <663@csm9a.UUCP> <4283@dandelion.CI.COM> <13520@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <453@xroads.UUCP> <394@upvax.UUCP> <10322@steinmetz.ge.com> <396@upvax.UUCP> Sender: news@steinmetz.ge.com Reply-To: desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY Lines: 160 Keywords: Microsoft, HP New Wave, Xerox, Lawsuit Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple:5378 comp.sys.ibm.pc:14368 comp.windows.misc:455 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!sungoddess!vita From: vita@sungoddess.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.windows.misc Subject: Re: Apple Lawsuit (was BOYCOTT APPLE, etc.) Message-ID: <10378@steinmetz.ge.com> Date: 12 Apr 88 18:12:51 GMT References: <292@unicom.UUCP> <663@csm9a.UUCP> <4283@dandelion.CI.COM> <13520@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <453@xroads.UUCP> <394@upvax.UUCP> <10322@steinmetz.ge.com> <396@upvax.UUCP> Sender: news@steinmetz.ge.com Reply-To: desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY Lines: 160 In article <396@upvax.UUCP> stevewa@upvax.UUCP (Steve Ward) writes: >>[...] if companies want to use the Apple standard, then they should >>license it from Apple. If not, they should develop their own >>standard. However, they should not just copy Apple's standard. >> >You seem to forget what we've seen in a number of previous postings (I don't >have references offhand) that HP tried to liscense from Apple for New Wave, >which Apple REFUSED to do, so HP went ahead and finished their product anyway, >and Microsoft did have SOME SORT (details? I haven't seen any) of agreement >with Apple concerning the development of Windows. Well, of course, a company which invents something is not *obligated* to license it. They may feel it is more in their interest not to license it. And the fact that they refuse to license their invention does not give others the right to steal it. (Of course, the 1985 agreement may indeed grant Microsoft a license to use the Macintosh interface. I have read the agreement, but it remains unclear.) >What really bugs me about this suit is that (A) what it really looks like is >that Apple is afraid the "rest of us" are catching up to them (because they >really haven't been doing much in terms of improving their interface), so >they are using this suit as a stop-gap measure to buy time, or else they've >decided to go after the PC market (via Claris) and decided it would be easier >if there weren't any competing offerings... and (B) that the end result >of all of this is that end-users and smaller developers end up getting reamed. I don't think that this is really the issue. I look at it this way: Apple invested a lot of time, effort and creativity in coming up with the Macintosh interface. At the time, there was nothing else like it in the microcomputer market, and there was a significant amount of risk involved in introducing a machine with such an interface. And in fact, when it was introduced, it was roundly ridiculed by most of the mainstream (i.e. MS-DOS) community (the "real men don't use icons" attitude.) Now that the Macintosh interface has become successful, Apple expects some payoff for having expended the effort and taking the risk (rightfully so, in my opinion). The Macintosh interface represents a significant competitive advantage for Apple over other PC manufacturers. In fact, it can be argued that the interface is the only real distinguishing characteristic of Apple's Macintosh line over competing machines. I don't think it should be surprising, then, that Apple should use whatever means at its disposal to try to maintain this competitive advantage. If they don't, they're digging their own grave. This is precisely the reason we have patent and copyright laws in the first place. If a company spends a good deal of money and effort coming up with some original idea, and its competitors are allowed to simply rip it off, then companies would have no incentive to innovate. You mention that the Apple suit is bugging a lot of people. Well, first of all, let me point out that the people being "bugged" are, for the most part, owners of MS-DOS machines. The reason they are annoyed is that Apple is not letting them use Apple-invented technology on their non-Apple equipment. Well, the answer to this, however asinine it may sound, is that if you want to benefit from this Apple-invented technology, you should buy Apple equipment. By way of comparison, I'm sure that a lot of Franklin Ace owners were pissed off when Apple sued Franklin for copyright infringement. However, this doesn't mean that Apple's suit was unjustified. >>A lot of people seem to think that the Apple interface IS the PARC >>interface, or that it is the only possible derivation of the PARC >>concepts. Not true. Take a look at, say, SunView. Here's a >>windowing system based on many of the same PARC principles as the Mac >>interface (i.e., bit-mapped display, windows, mouse), but whose >>interface is MUCH different from the Mac interface. Note that Apple >>is NOT suing Sun over SunView. Apple is not claiming a monopoly on >>PARC-style interfaces. > >That may be true...I haven't seen SunView, but I have seen Smalltalk-80 and >while it and the Mac interface have many important (for legal types) >differences, I would say that the "look and feel" is similar...What does >look and feel mean, anyway? I thought you weren't able to sue people over >things so general and vague as that...it seems usually there has to be some >concrete statement of the infringement(?) I don't really know what "look and feel" means, either. Most of the relevant precedents are from cases involving greeting cards and arcade games. Hopefully, this is one of the things that will be clarified by the suit. >(several points against my examples deleted...points well taken) > >There's one place where Windows definately beats Mac...You can turn the >interface OFF if you want to! Let's face it, there are some times when >you just don't need a user friendly interface and can make good use of the >computing power that keeping a bitmapped display robs from you...the way the >Mac is set up, if you want to get that power back, you have to buy another >computer! I'll grant this, though I think the claim that a bit-mapped display and friendly user interface "robs you of computing power" is generally overstated. Also, it's becoming less and less of an issue as the horsepower of common microprocessors increases. Also, note that there *are* alternative user interfaces for the Macintosh, including some which are command-line oriented (examples: the RasNIX desk accessory and the MPW shell, both of which provide a Unix-style environment.) >One of the reasons I decided to buy an AT instead of a Mac was that for a >similar power processor I got more power as a user from the AT than from the >Mac. (another reason was cost...you just can't get as much bang for the >buck from Apple as you can from a well built IBM clone... There's no question that you can get a better "bang for the buck" from an AT clone than from a Macintosh, in terms of raw performance. Despite the recent price cuts, I still think that Apple's machines are absurdly overpriced. However, as long as Apple is making money hand over fist selling at those prices, they will probably continue to do so. Also, note that part of the reason people pay such a premium price for Macintoshes is to receive the benefit of the nice user interface. >[...] maybe one day >Apple will figure out that one big reason PCs caught on so well was the >fact that a number of vendors were producing them, some better than the >original...maybe IBM will learn that too, and stop threatening to sue >companies wanting to make PS2 clones?) I question the wisdom of a company allowing or encouraging the development of cheap clones. While it may be good for the average consumer in the short run, it may not be in the long run, and it is certainly bad for the original company. For example, I don't think that IBM has benefited from the proliferation of cheap PC clones. Though they did help establish the PC as a standard, the overall result has been decreased market share and lower profits for IBM. I mean, I'm no fan of IBM, but I can see where they might be a bit miffed seeing other companies making money off of their invention. >>[...] But Microsoft and HP should try to convince Apple to >>license their standard, rather than just ripping it off. > >THEY (at least HP) TRIED. What else can they do? As I've said before, the fact that they tried to license it and failed does not constitute justification for stealing it. What else can they do? How about: come up with something BETTER. Instead of setting out to imitate the Macintosh interface (as Microsoft did with Windows), they could start from basic PARC concepts (or maybe something else altogether), put in a few person-years of effort, as Apple did, and create something truly original; different from, and, yes, perhaps even better than, what Apple has. Essentially, they could kick Apple's butt at their own game. Apple does not have a monopoly on bright, creative people. I'm sure that Microsoft and/or HP is fully capable of such an effort. I challenge them to give it a try. It's what make competition interesting. >Steve Ward >stevewa@upvax.UUCP >!tektronix!upvax!stevewa ---- Mark Vita ARPA: vita@ge-crd.ARPA General Electric Company UUCP: vita@desdemona.steinmetz.UUCP Corporate R & D vita@desdemona.steinmetz.ge.com Schenectady, NY desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP