Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL
From: SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Apple ][ threatened again?!?
Message-ID: <9002250223.AA02901@apple.com>
Date: 24 Feb 90 23:04:02 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: School of Business - U. of Connecticut
Lines: 43

On Sat, 24 Feb 90 07:27:04 GMT you said:
>In article <1990Feb24.053907.4257@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>
> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes:
>>And the high end to DOS clones with new versions of windows. Microsoft is
>>working their asses off to close the gap.
>
>Didn't Apple take Microsoft (and Hewlett-Packard as well) to court over copying
>the appearance of the Desktop?  Microsoft Windows may be on the way out (ditto
>for whatever the HP product's called).  Why do you think the NeXT looks quite a

Yes, and a judge has tossed much of Apple's complaint out on the basis of
a cross-licensing agreement that exists between Microsoft and Apple.
Meanwhile, Xerox got steamed at Apple (which got the idea from the Xerox
Star and has some some sort of agreement/release from Xerox -- as I recall
but could be wrong -- covering at least some aspects of the technology)
and sued Apple over the same issue.

The whole mess is tangled and interwoven into a mess that only the various
attorneys with their meters running could love.  By the time the whole
thing is settled (appeals and all) we'll be well into the next century
and windows of all sorts will have been made obsolete by computers that
use ESP as an interface :-)

>bit different from the Macintosh, with things such as a program dock instead of
>a menu bar on the top of the screen?
>
>IMHO, I don't think Apple stands a chance in the case.  Copyright law would
>protect them if they could prove that Microsoft copied Apple code (as Franklin
>did years ago), but you can't put a copyright on an idea such as the Desktop.

See Broderbund's "look and feel" suit (which they won but, as I recall, is
still being appealed).  While you can't copyright an idea, you CAN (evidently
copyright an appearance unless you can show that the "look and feel" is
obviously the only way something could be done or something like that).

There's at least one lawyer on the net who flames folks (with justification)
for "practicing law without a license"  I'm GLAD I'm not a lawyer!  Any
thing I've said is recall (based on fallible) memory of press reports and
NOT legal opinion.

/s Murph <Sewall%UConnVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu>         [Internet]
      or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall     [UUCP]
 + Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)