🚀 go-pugleaf

>...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).

>... 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!!"

The point about derivatives is well taken, but also applies equally to
Apple as it regards Xerox and developments in iconic, window-based systems.
Apple will no doubt counter that they were licensed by Xerox in conjunction
with Smalltalk; wouldn't you know it, HP also is licensed by Xerox!  I'm no
lawyer (should have said that earlier) but that fact would introduce some
'reasonable doubt' in my mind.

As for Windows, how anyone can claim it to be a Mac copy is beyond me.
Where are the folders? the trash can?  Can Windows move/copy files by moving
their icons?

The simple fact is that Windows uses the same approach as the Mac, but hardly
the same methods.  It is quite clear to even the most casual observer that
they are distinct products, both drawing on Xerox's initial research.  Seems
to me that Apple should hire some new lawyers.... These guys are out in left
field.

*****************************************************************************
These are, of course, personal opinions only!
*****************************************************************************
Dave Goodwin
PC Support Coordinator
St. Michael's College
Winooski, VT
GOODWIN@SMCVAX.BITNET