Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple:5498 comp.sys.ibm.pc:14537 comp.windows.misc:467
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!uoregon!jqj
From: jqj@uoregon.UUCP (JQ Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: Apple Lawsuit (was BOYCOTT APPLE, etc.)
Message-ID: <1840@uoregon.UUCP>
Date: 15 Apr 88 23:48:52 GMT
References: <292@unicom.UUCP> <663@csm9a.UUCP> <4283@dandelion.CI.COM> <10378@steinmetz.ge.com> <1894@bgsuvax.UUCP> <10420@steinmetz.ge.com>
Reply-To: jqj@drizzle.UUCP (JQ Johnson)
Organization: University of Oregon, Computer Science, Eugene OR
Lines: 11
Keywords: Microsoft, HP New Wave, Xerox, Lawsuit

In article <10420@steinmetz.ge.com> desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) writes:
>	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).
Despite the 1985 agreement, this may be disputed, especially for New Wave.
In the 1985 agreement Microsoft acknowledged that parts of Windows 1.0 are a
derivative work.  What we have here is a dispute over how much the
derivative of the derivative work is derivative.

Personally, I find Windows 2.0 as different from the Mac as it is from
the Xerox ViewPoint interface.