Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple:5435 comp.sys.ibm.pc:14451 comp.windows.misc:461 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!falstaff!vita From: vita@falstaff.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: <10420@steinmetz.ge.com> Date: 14 Apr 88 12:54:04 GMT References: <292@unicom.UUCP> <663@csm9a.UUCP> <4283@dandelion.CI.COM> <10378@steinmetz.ge.com> <1894@bgsuvax.UUCP> Sender: news@steinmetz.ge.com Reply-To: desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY Lines: 70 Keywords: Microsoft, HP New Wave, Xerox, Lawsuit In article <1894@bgsuvax.UUCP> ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (Phil Ritzenthaler) writes: >In article <10378@steinmetz.ge.com>, vita@sungoddess.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) writes: >> . . . The reason they are annoyed >> is that Apple is not letting them use Apple-invented technology on >> their non-Apple equipment. > >No, No, NO!! Apple did NOT invent the technology, Xerox did! Yes, yes, yes. Apple did invent *the Macintosh interface*. It is significantly different from the Xerox interface, though it is based on Xerox-invented concepts. It contains many user-interface techniques that were invented at Apple, not at Xerox. There's a difference between a derivation (i.e., Xerox->Apple or Xerox->Sun) and a more or less straight copy (i.e. Apple->Windows). I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple is not claiming a monopoly on Xerox PARC-style interfaces. It is trying to prevent unauthorized duplication of its own particular derivation of the Xerox interface. They are not suing people who have PARC-style interfaces which are different from the Macintosh interface. >Now, did Xerox >license it to Apple?? Nobody seems to know . . . Apple claims to have "broad licensing agreements" with Xerox. Xerox disputes this, saying the license was limited to Smalltalk. >If not, how about HP, MS, and IBM go to Xerox and license/buy the rights from >them. Then they can turn around and sue Apple for infringement . . . The real question is: does the 1985 agreement between Apple and Microsoft grant Microsoft rights to use the Macintosh interface? To me, it looks like it DOES. This could be Apple's biggest problem as far as the suit goes. The agreement is somewhat vaguely worded, and from what I've read, vagueness in a written agreement is interpreted by the courts to detriment of the drafter; in this case, Apple. Note that in this same licensing agreement, Microsoft acknowledges that Windows is indeed based in the Macintosh interface. I quote from the agreement: "...Microsoft acknowledges that the visual displays in the above-listed Microsoft programs are derivative works of the visual displays generated by Apple's Lisa and Macintosh graphic user interface programs." What doesn't seem to make sense is that Apple would sign an agreement which appears to basically give away the candy store. But the story I heard was that the agreement was signed somewhat "under duress". In 1985, Apple was struggling, the Mac was not selling well, and about the only software keeping the Mac alive were the packages from Microsoft. Supposedly Bill Gates threatened that if Apple did not sign such an agreement, Microsoft would pull its Mac software off the market. So Apple signed. Pretty cheesy deal, if you ask me. Of course, nowadays, Microsoft could not afford to kill its Mac products, since so much of their revenue now comes from the Mac market, and companies like Ashton-Tate are mounting a serious challenge to Microsoft's dominance in the Mac marketplace. >Oh boy, Oh boy, I love a fight . . . Yeah, me too. >Phil Ritzenthaler UUCP :.!cbosgd!osu-cis!bgsuvax!ritzenth > ARPA : ritzenth@andy.bgsu.edu ---- 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