Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:40104 comp.sys.mac:44436 comp.sys.amiga:45846
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!pollux.usc.edu!papa
From: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Xerox sues Apple!!!
Message-ID: <21817@usc.edu>
Date: 16 Dec 89 21:24:56 GMT
References: <4540@ur-cc.UUCP> <7066@chaph.usc.edu>
Sender: news@usc.edu
Reply-To: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa)
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Organization: USC
Lines: 30

In article <7066@chaph.usc.edu> eickmeye@girtab.usc.edu (Biff Henderson) writes:
>The following article is from the Los Angeles Times, Friday, 
>December 15, 1989, page D3.
>
>Xerox Sues Apple Over Graphics Software
[...]
>
>     A Xerox spokesman said the suit was filed now because recent 
							    ^^^^^^
>changes in software protection and intellectual property laws 
 ^^^^^^^
>make it easier to assert its position.  He declined to specify 
>those changes.

Just a little clarification on this.   The "recent changes" clearly
refer to the fact that earlier this year the US joined the Berne
Convention.  The "MAJOR" item involved in this is that it is no
longer considered a requirement for copyright protection to put a copyright
notice (the little 'c' enclosed in a circle) to claim copyright protection,
as it was previously.  Many lawyers have commented that if the Intel vs. NEC
lawsuit were to be tried today, Intel would win and not lose as it did
because it did not write proper copyright notices on its chips.

It is going to be fun to watch this thing (and the related Apple vs. MS/HP
lawsuit) unravel.  

-- Marco
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[.signature under contruction]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=