Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:40171 comp.sys.mac:44520 comp.misc:7701 misc.legal:12964
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!Will
From: Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac,comp.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Xerox sues Apple!!!
Message-ID: <25153@cup.portal.com>
Date: 18 Dec 89 02:06:16 GMT
References: <4540@ur-cc.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 47

< Apple should have known better than to sue the one software company that
< provides so much software for their machine.  Did they think they could get
< away with it without getting the attention of Xerox?  Like the old saying goe
s,
< people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Who's kidding whom here?  Apple knows exactly what it's doing.  It's an
old strategy from poker known as the bluff, and they do it to superb
advantage.

First off, obviously Apple stole Xerox's idea.  Steve Jobs visited the
Star project in 1979 and was so impressed with the technology that he
started the Lisa project and the rest is history.  I don't know what kind
of paperwork he signed, but assuming that nothing unusual was signed,
the theft of this idea is perfectly legal because you can't copyright
an idea, only its expression.  

Second, obviously Microsoft stole Apple's idea.  They saw the Mac early on
and instantly fell in love with it and realized they needed something
to compete with it in the MS-DOS world and they shamelessly cloned it.
But because they did not steal the expression of the idea, just the idea,
what they did is perfectly legal.

The issue of look and feel when you *identically* duplicate an
application aside, clearly there are major differences between the Star,
the Mac, and Windows.  Clearly, each was developed from scratch and
required major innovation.  Clearly, each stole from its predecessor
the basic concepts that make up the environment, but not the exact
expression of those concepts in the form of either code or even look
and feel.

Basically, what all of this comes down to, I think, is that Apple
does not want its healthy profit margins eroded by a clone industry.
Thus Apple has quite astutely used its legal department to intimidate
potential competitors.  Apple must know that it cannot win the Microsoft
case, just as it knows that Xerox cannot win a copyright infringement
case against Apple.  But it will fight to the end with sterness just
the way a good poker player carries out his bluff to the end.  And
I'm sure that if someone tries to clone the Mac, Apple will sue again,
even if it loses the Microsoft case.  Just the legal costs of fighting
this in court serve as an effective barrier to entry in Apple's market
segment.            

Unfortunately, these lawsuits have very little to do with what is legally
just, and they have a lot to do with marketing strategy.

Will              (sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Will)