Borland/Lotus suit: practical implications

Thread View: comp.apps.spreadsheets

6 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

6 total messages Started by jgarland Wed, 05 Aug 1992 14:21

#50

Author: jgarland
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1992 14:21

15 lines
1044 bytes

I saw an item in a Canadian paper stating that Borland has lost the 123
look and feel suit (or possibly only some part of it).  Does anyone
have better information (not emotions) as to what has been adjudicated
and what it means for the user (though any gossip about money settlements
might be interesting as well).

For example, I have no use for the 123 menu structure and have deleted the
Q1 and 123 menu files to save space.  Does this mean I'll see no problem or
is Lotus after the whole programme?

Thanks for any help out there.

John Garland
jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca
jgarland@cygnus.ucs.mun.ca

Re: Borland/Lotus suit: practical implications

#52

Author: T. Scott Thompson
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1992 18:16

16 lines
1306 bytes

jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:

>For example, I have no use for the 123 menu structure and have deleted the
>Q1 and 123 menu files to save space.  Does this mean I'll see no problem or
>is Lotus after the whole programme?

My reading of the articles in the Wall Street Journal on the recent ruling
suggests that the only change in Quattro Pro that will occur in response is
deletion of the 1-2-3 menu structure.  Of course that could cause problems
for some macros that rely on this structure.

A Borland rep was quoted as saying something like "the only change in
our product is deletion of an obsolete piece of technology used by
fewer than 10% of established customers" (or words to that effect).

Next upgrade you won't have to delete the 1-2-3 menus yourself!

Re: Borland/Lotus suit: practical implications

#55

Author: F0O
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1992 12:42

19 lines
1233 bytes

In article <thompson.713038566@daphne.socsci.umn.edu>,
thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson) says:

>jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:

>>For example, I have no use for the 123 menu structure and have deleted the
>>Q1 and 123 menu files to save space.  Does this mean I'll see no problem or
>>is Lotus after the whole programme?

[some stuff deleted]
>A Borland rep was quoted as saying something like "the only change in
>our product is deletion of an obsolete piece of technology used by
>fewer than 10% of established customers" (or words to that effect).

   I always get a kick out of speeches like this.  If this is true,
then why didn't Borland just drop it in the first place and save all
those court charges?

                                                             [Tim]

Re: Borland/Lotus suit: practical implications

#56

Author: Bill Coleman
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1992 19:03

9 lines
824 bytes

So long as Borland provides the opportunity to customize the menu tree, is
there anything to prevent third-party programmers, shareware or otherwise,
from providing a 123.mu file?



-- 
Bill Coleman
clmn@midway.uchicago.edu

Re: Borland/Lotus suit: practical implications

#58

Author: Wailer at the Gates of Dawn
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1992 04:29

15 lines
1274 bytes

F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>   I always get a kick out of speeches like this.  If this is true,
>then why didn't Borland just drop it in the first place and save all
>those court charges?

Freedom and the american way of programming.  Besides which, at one point 
lotus menu compatibility was probally an important selling point.  This is
only the first round anyhow.  Papers for appeals have been filed.

-- 
The Wailer at the Gates of Dawn              | banshee@cats.UCSC.EDU       |
Just who ARE you calling a FROOFROO Head?    |                             |
DoD#0667  "Just a friend of the beast."      | banshee@ucscb.UCSC.EDU      |
2,3,5,7,13,17,19,31,61,89,107,127,521,607....| banshee@ucscb.BITNET        |

Re: Borland/Lotus suit: practical implications

#59

Author: Wailer at the Gates of Dawn
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1992 04:30

15 lines
1278 bytes

clmn@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Coleman) writes:

>So long as Borland provides the opportunity to customize the menu tree, is
>there anything to prevent third-party programmers, shareware or otherwise,
>from providing a 123.mu file?

Suprise!  No.  And borland will be giving away the menu for $10 to cover 
shipping and handling.  I believe that it is going to become public domain.

-- 
The Wailer at the Gates of Dawn              | banshee@cats.UCSC.EDU       |
Just who ARE you calling a FROOFROO Head?    |                             |
DoD#0667  "Just a friend of the beast."      | banshee@ucscb.UCSC.EDU      |
2,3,5,7,13,17,19,31,61,89,107,127,521,607....| banshee@ucscb.BITNET        |

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads