Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!bu-cs!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!rice!great-horned.Rice.EDU!dboyes
From: dboyes@great-horned.Rice.EDU (David E. Boyes)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: GNU's not GNU...
Message-ID: <3081@kalliope.rice.edu>
Date: 12 Apr 89 02:27:37 GMT
References: <39926@oliveb.olivetti.com> <27674@apple.Apple.COM> <6396@cbmvax.UUCP> <878@itivax.iti.org> <2963@kalliope.rice.edu>
Sender: usenet@rice.edu
Lines: 32

Somewhere David Chase at chase@Ozona.UUCP said:
>It just occurred to me that it might be interesting to ask all the
>people on the "Contributors to GNU CC" list about any software-related
>litigation that *they* may have been involved in, which side they were
>on, and what the reasons for bringing the suit were.  I'll bet you can
>find at least one whose suit was entirely a "squash the competition so
>that we can continue to make money" suit.  I can't see what makes
>Apple so especially evil in this regard.


My problem with this sort of behavior is not the action -- although I find 
such behavior absolutely reprehensible -- but the attitude. I've dealt with 
IBM research organizations and been involved in a number of development 
projects that never saw the light of day as real products. My experience has
been that companies like IBM and DEC will *not* risk litigation unless they
have an absolutely airtight case that they are certain they can win. I've 
followed the Apple case fairly closely, and I haven't seen any evidence that
either of the defendants in this case have even *looked* at Apple's code.
It's very much a *preemptive* action on their part, and nowhere do I see Apple
giving credit to the people who really deserve it: the researchers at Xerox
PARC.

If Apple had built the concept of a windowing system up from scratch, and HP
and Microsoft had blatantly (or not-so-blatantly) used their labors to 
build and sell windowing systems that claimed to be original work, I'd be
cheering for Apple in this. However, that is *NOT* the case. Apple started from
the Xerox research groups, just like everyone else. They have no justification
for their 'holier-than-thou' attitude, or to attempt to force the FSF to
provide support for their machines.

If any of you would care to continue this discussion, please send mail directly
to me -- I'd rather use this forum to talk about GCC.