Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!rutgers!att!pegasus!ech
From: ech@pegasus.ATT.COM (Edward C Horvath)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Apple gets favorable ruling
Message-ID: <2728@pegasus.ATT.COM>
Date: 28 Mar 89 05:33:07 GMT
References: <27940@apple.Apple.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T ISL Middletown NJ USA
Lines: 50

From article <27940@apple.Apple.COM>, by chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach):

> I'm just tossing a monkey wrench into this, just for the hell of it. Please
> consider my tongue stuck slightly into my cheek.

> You can actually look at this two ways. You can say that Apple is keeping
> people from using the best technology. You can also say that everyone else
> is trying to jump on the Apple bandwagon instead of going and inventing the
> next quantum leap in the interfaces. 

Tongue in cheek or no, Chuq, we part company here.  Progress occurs in two
ways, evolutionary and revolutionary.  The first steering wheel was certainly
suboptimal.  It may be that all steering wheels are suboptimal.  But
mandating that every car manufacturer invent an entirely new steering
mechanism -- requiring revolution by outlawing evolution -- is flat silly.

I have absolutely no problem with Apple charging enough to recover past and
present development costs.  Apple have the right to charge whatever they
wish; if I don't like it, I'll buy something else.  They have the right
to license their technology to whomever they wish, including no one.

They also have the right to try to build the patent/copyright/l&f walls just
as high and wide as they wish.  But I believe that, beyond a certain point,
that effort just amounts to restraint of free trade and free expression.

The way I advance the state of the art is by taking an accepted standard --
like the Mac interface -- and putting the spin on it that I need to make
my application more effective and usable.  We've seen many Mac developers
introduce innovations into the Mac interface -- popup menus, command-key
standards, macro processors, tear-off palettes -- that are incremental
improvements on the basic interface.  Some of these have been incorporated
into Apple standard system software and ROMs, some have not.

Using standards makes my app more acceptable and accessible.  Putting on
the spin WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO DO SO is what separates my app from the pack.

So I agree that Apple can, and should, protect their R&D investment.  But
the best defense remains a good offense: keep doing the R&D, keep the
evolution AND revolutions coming.  When the law of diminishing returns
sets in on the Mac, we'll chuck the whole thing for the next round of fruit.
Possibly from Apple.  Unless their lawyer budget passes their R&D budget.
Anybody else here remember VisiCorp?

I still keep hoping that I'll wake up one fine morning to the New York Times
story about how Apple refused to settle out of court, forced the Look&Feel
issue to the clear judicial decision...that L&F was bullshit.  And that
Sculley declared a company holiday to celebrate.  It's the kind of thing Woz
would do.  But Woz never was a businessman...

=Ned Horvath=