Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple:5431 comp.sys.ibm.pc:14437 comp.windows.misc:459 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!csustan!koko!foobar From: foobar@koko.UUCP (John Fruetel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.windows.misc Subject: Re: Apple Lawsuit (was BOYCOTT APPLE, etc.) Message-ID: <803@koko.UUCP> Date: 14 Apr 88 07:06:41 GMT References: <292@unicom.UUCP> <663@csm9a.UUCP> <4283@dandelion.CI.COM> <13520@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <453@xroads.UUCP> <394@upvax.UUCP> <103 Reply-To: foobar@koko.UUCP (John Fruetel) Followup-To: misc.legal Organization: Computer Science Department, CSU Stanislaus, Turlock CA Lines: 79 Keywords: Microsoft, HP New Wave, Xerox, Lawsuit In article <10378@steinmetz.ge.com> desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) writes: >jpple 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. > As we all know, Apple was originally a technology driven company. It was just a couple of guys having a good time designing hardware. After the Mac was introduced, Apple seemed to transform into a strictly market driven company. What happened? Apple has been enjoying it's "hacker" image for years, an image that I've feel that it doesn't deserve. If nothing else, this stupid lawsuit will end that image now and forever. Even though Apple may have some legal grounds (although it seems shaky after reading the Apple/Microsoft agreement), they are certainly not following industry practices. Visicorp essentially invented the electronic spreadsheet. As far as I know, they didn't sue everyone who later introduced an electronic spreadsheet. Wordstar was one of the pioneers in microcomputer word processing. They didn't bring up lawsuits against other companies that had word processors. Why does Apple think that they possess the right for all window-type operating systems? They didn't even invent the concept although they did popularize it. If Visicorp and Micropro had the same attitude that Apple seems to have, we would all be stuck with Visicalc and wordstar as are only spreadsheet and word processor choices. For the first time in my computing career, I'm rooting for IBM as the underdog. Although IBM wasn't specifically mentioned in the suit, Apple *must* have had the Presentation Manager (which is based on Windows 2.0) in mind. As you say, the Mac's (only) advantage over PC's is the windowing environment. IBM is moving to "fix" this problem. Once they do, Apple will no longer hold the monopoly on "user friendly" interfaces. Unless Apple seriously enhances their OS, it could be curtains for the Mac. So, I don't blame them for wanting to maintain a competitive edge. But why couldn't they have enhanced Finder and Multifinder? And why, oh why, won't they put a reasonable price tags on their machines? This would CERTAINLY give them a better edge than they have now. >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 (I've heard mucho complaints from Mac owners.) >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. > What Apple invented technology? You mean XEROX invented technology, don't you? Even though Apple may have enhanced the concept (possibly with Microsoft's programmers, no less), I feel that Windows 2.0 is an improvement over Finder. It allows multitasking, particularly Windows/386, and it's process based instead of file based. It's also a little nicer to people who don't care for mice. So I feel that Microsoft HAS come up with a better interface than Apple and that it is not simply a Finder rip-off. >---- >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 bcnu j fruetel * The opinions expressed here are John Fruetel * * my own, etc., etc., etc.. Valley Fresh Foods, Inc. * * Turlock, CA * * ..uunet!lll-winken!csustan!foobar *