🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <986@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes:
>rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert K Shull) writes:
>Whatever your feelings about this particular case, it seems to me that
>Apple is only getting what they have been dishing out.  Apple was mainly
>responsible for the ``look and feel'' legal concept, and nobody denies
>that a large part of the basics of the windowing interface in general,
>and the Mac implementation in particular, were developed and tested at
>Xerox PARC.
>
>If Apple wants to go around suing people for appropriating their ideas,
>such as pull-down menus, window titles, and other Apple developed user
>interface concepts, they should expect to get sued by people whose ideas
>they appropriated (eg: Xerox).  They can't have it both ways.  If Apple
>is wise, they would pony up $10 or $20 million to Xerox for a license
>fee -- because it helps legitimize their position in re: look and feel.
>
>Why didn't they?  It seems that the risk they may see is that if they
>pay Xerox, Xerox will go around licensing everyone else for windowing
>systems; and these people will wave the licenses in front of Apple when
>Apple's lawyers come calling.
>

  Actually, if you go digging far enough you'll find that Xerox owns (or
at least, a used to own) a small part of Apple.  This was in return for use
of the Star technology on the Lisa and the Macintosh...  I don't know why
Xerox suddenly decided to sue Apple.  They don't have any ground to stand on.

_______________________________________________________________________________
Dean Yu                            | E-mail: mystone@caen.engin.umich.edu
Self-declared License Czar         | Real-mail: Dean Yu
University of Michigan             |            909 Church St
Computer Aided Engineering Network |            Apt C
     INCLUDE 'Disclaimers.a'       |            Ann Arbor, MI 48104
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------