Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!steve
From: steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Apple gets favorable ruling
Keywords: Apple, Microsoft, lawsuits, HP
Message-ID: <22210@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 29 Mar 89 00:05:06 GMT
References: <6271@bsu-cs.UUCP> <1068@Portia.Stanford.EDU> <37812@think.UUCP> <568@madnix.UUCP> <564@apexepa.UUCP> <5182@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 27

In article <5182@cbnews.ATT.COM> cbema!las@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr) writes:
#>In article <564@apexepa.UUCP> peter@apexepa.UUCP (Peter Palij) writes:
#>
#>}I think 25-Mar-89 _The Economist_ put it best:
#>
#>}... At stake is technology that promises to make computers easier to
#>}use.  Clear ownership of user-interface technology would put Apple in
#>}a commanding market position. It would drastically alter competition
#>}and innovation. Imagine what might have happened had an early carmaker
#>}managed to patent the steering wheel, accelerator and brake pedals.
#>
#>Such a patent did, at one time, exist - at least in the U.S.  Henry Ford
#>fought it and won.
#>
#>regards, Larry

Another good example was the hillholder, which was patented by
Studebaker. The hillholder kept a car from sliding backward
in neutral when engaging the gears prior to going up a hill.
Nobody else could install it. Eventually, better manual
transmissions and automatics superceded it.

More importantly, the downside of patenting is clearly visible
when disparate manufacturers each make valuable advances but no
consumer can purchase a machine with all these advances combined.

Steve Goldfield