🚀 go-pugleaf

  Bill Marsh writes:
------------------------
>In article <32634@cup.portal.com> Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes)
> writes:
>>  Hmmm...SEA vs Philip Katz, Apple vs Microsoft, Lotus vs Paperback, etc.
>
>>  Flame...how long have you been in Timbuktoo? :)
>
>>  SEA vs Philip Katz - I believe this was actually a trademark battle [do you
>>know that using the ARC(TM) logo as a file extender is illegal? ]
>
>So, PK has come up with ZIP, which is a better, faster, and more compact 
>storage method.  Also note, this was settled out of court, so no legally
>binding decision was made from this action.

  I agree, ZIP is much better [and I hope SEA is badly hurt by it too! :) ]

  However, this doesn't change the fact that PK was strangled in court by
a company able and willing to waste his time and money in court.  If there
were no copyright/trademark stupidities such as this we would have better
software - PK would have continued with his ARC programs (adding ZIP 
compression,etc).  If you compare SEA's current ARC to the one before the
suit, you won't find much of a difference.  This indicates a willingness
to play in court but not in the marketplace.

>
>Using 'ARC' is only illegal if your 'ARC' file is not compatible with the
>'ARC' utility from SEA.  It seems simple enough to get SEA's approval, 
>though I dislike having to give SEA any source code.

   Seems a perfect reason to not have copyrights to me.  This is the same 
as saying I I can't play PREPPIE because it is a takeoff of PACMAN.

>
>You have to remember, in cases that are settled 'out of court', that no
>law was applied (or tested).  In SEA v. PKWARE, PK (i believe) gave in
>because of other things.

  Yeah, he gave in because he didn't have the money to fight the suit.  The
effect was a 'win' for SEA by precedent.

>
>>  Apple vs Microsoft - Microsoft licensed the MAC interface, Apple got ticked
>>when they used it for Windows & PM.
>
>And it's still in court.  It would appear that Microsoft will win, based on
>the current round of judgements in the case.  I think Apple still hasn't
>shown what is in Windows v2.0 that was not in Windows v1.0 that was 'invented'
>by Apple. (i.e. there is no trashcan in Windows)

  You're right, MS may win (and I hope they do) but in the meantime it has 
cost MS and the end user a great deal of time and money.

>
>>  Lotus vs Paperback - look and feel crapola (some merit to this suit, but
>>so little that the suit did a great deal more harm to the community at
>>large than Paperback did to Lotus).
>
>The Judge didn't mention 'look and feel', just that the Lotus menu system
>was unique and non-obvious, not that the spreadsheet has rows and columns.

  Kinda funny that Lotus is going after Borland then, eh?

>
>IMHO, I think that all three of the cases were based on greed, and only
>greed.  Instead of continuing to develope and improve their software, the
>companies decided to use the courts to protect their market advantage,
>which I think is wrong. 

  Yep, they sure are...and that is what you asked for. (see previous posting)

>Anything new and unique (Which SEA's ARC isn't, BTW)
>should be rewarded with copyrights or patents.

  I disagree on what is 'new and unique' as does Lotus, Apple, and SEA.  The
difference is that they are willing to go to court and I am willing to make
something better.

>
>Bill
>-- 
>Bill Marsh, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA
>{arpa,mil}net: bmarsh@cod.nosc.mil
>uucp: {ihnp4,akgua,decvax,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!nosc!bmarsh
>"If everything seems to be coming your way, you're probably in the wrong lane.

Charles_K_Hughes@cup.portal.com