🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5836@well.UUCP> rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) writes:
>world, and not made by a company which uses litigation as a
>"competitive" tactic -- and thus hurts the microcomputer community

Ah, you prefer a company which steals its ideas from others, instead of
spending the time, effort, and money to develop its own, thus stifling
creativity - thus hurting the microcomputer community. :-)

Now, before all of the IBM'ers start flaming:

(1) Notice the smiley face.
(2) Think.

Are you so sure that your attitudes represent some sort of revelation to the
world? Is there no room for any other point of view? (This applies to
everybody, not just IBM'ers).

What about IBM and the PS/2? They've announced their intention to "use
litigation as a competitive tactic" to protect their design. Is this right?
If so, what's the difference between this and Apple's suit? If not, how far
is it right to go in duplicating someone else's design? How are we supposed
to figure out the limits?

Also, for write software authors: How much of your time do you spend designing
your software as compared to coding? Would you feel happy if someone duplicated
your design, thus eliminating that requirement for them? What would this do
to the price of your competitors' software as compared to yours?

Suppose I sat down and wrote a fully compatible MS-DOS, with extensions,
guaranteed to remain compatible, and started selling it for five dollars.
(Ignore the fact that I avoid MS-DOS like the plague, having had to work
with it for a year or so). Would this be legal? Would this be right? Is there
a difference between being legal and being right? Suppose Apple did it?
Would this change your opinion?

Not flames, just some things to think about.
-- 
Robert K. Shull
University of Oklahoma, Engineering Computer Network
ihnp4!occrsh!uokmax!rob		CIS 73765,1254		Delphi	RKSHULL
Opinions contained herein in no way reflect those of the University of Oklahoma.