🚀 go-pugleaf

 Leonard Erickson <tektronix!reed!psu-cs!qiclab!leonard@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
writes:
>Remember, HP *tried* to get a license.

If I understand Apple's court papers (with documents written by lawyers
one can never tell - recall Shakespeare's presciption for the cure of
social ills "Kill all the lawyers."), Apple's problem is not with
New Wave per se.  New Wave is a licensed derivative of Windows 2.03;
hence, if Windows 2.03 is found to be in violation of Apple's copyright
it follows (doesn't it?) that any licensed derivative also must be
in violation (regardless of how it is made to appear in default?  That
part at least, is curious).

I did actually have occassion today to ask a legal scholar about the
suit.  He allowed as how his specialty is NOT copyright, but he has
a Macintosh and a friend who showed him Windows.  His reaction (impression,
gut feel, etc.) was "Wow, Windows is a flat out copy of the Macintosh
interface!!"  He reminded me of how I felt when I first saw a copy of
Print Master (a flat out copy of Print Shop - and we all know where
that's led to).

---------------------
Disclaimer: I like my opinions better than my employer's anyway...
            (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)

ARPA:   sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu       Murphy A. Sewall
BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM                          School of Business Admin.
UUCP:   ...ihnp4!psuvax1!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL  University of Connecticut