Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!amdahl!esf00 From: esf00@uts.amdahl.com (Elliott S. Frank) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Apple gets favorable ruling Keywords: Apple, Microsoft, lawsuits, HP Message-ID: <11LkHe9QAu1010Teu6c@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> Date: 29 Mar 89 01:33:22 GMT References: <6271@bsu-cs.UUCP> <1068@Portia.Stanford.EDU> <37812@think.UUCP> <568@madnix.UUCP> <564@apexepa.UUCP> <27940@apple.Apple.COM> Reply-To: esf00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Elliott S. Frank) Distribution: usa Organization: The Beige Building Full of Bright Engineers, Inc. Lines: 30 In article <27940@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >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. > Or you could say .... .... that Apple now has lawyers who remind John Scully that >copyrights< belonging to commercial organizations (as opposed to private individuals) are basically "use it or lose it" items. If Apple does not present a vigorous defense of its copyrights (insofar as the law is concerned), then the copyright is null and void [can you spell 8086 ucode?]. Gassee's "family jewels" talk (usually cleaned up to "crown jewels" in the family-oriented trade press) suggests that Apple is not eager to put its visual interface (or its operating system) into the public domain. Whether a particular piece of Apple's visual interface is copyrightable or not is probably of much less concern than whether the copyright on the >entire< visual interface is defended. -- Elliott Frank ...!{hplabs,ames,sun}!amdahl!esf00 (408) 746-6384 or ....!{bnrmtv,drivax,hoptoad}!amdahl!esf00 [the above opinions are strictly mine, if anyone's.] [the above signature may or may not be repeated, depending upon some inscrutable property of the mailer-of-the-week.]