🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <935@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU> csachs@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Colin Sachs) writes:
>(Jeffrey M White) writes: [In reply to (Chris Newbold) re:Xerox suit)
>
>> Note that this case is
>> different from the Apple/Microsoft case, in which Apple and Microsoft already
>> had an agreement.  Apple sued because they felt the changes MS made in version
>> 2.0 of windows weren't part of their previous agreement.  
>
>No.  I think they sued because they felt that the changes MS made in v.2.0
>of windows put that product and all PC machines in direct competition with
>the Macintosh computers.  Apple set themselves up for the suit from Xerox
>by pushing their so-called proprietary rights to the graphic/windows
>interface.  Plain and simple.
>

  That would be the obvious economic reason to sue.  However, there MUST also
be a legal reason behind it, especially since Apple has already won part of the
case.  Apple can't walk into court and say '... this new producet is going to
cause us to lose sales, so we want to sue them to prevent it from coming to 
market.'  Every company would be suing all of their competitors.
  I feel most people THINK that Apple probably got some, if not a lot of their
Lisa/Mac user interface from the Xerox Star, and were always wondering whether
they were ever going to get sued for it, especially when they sued Microsoft
for supposedly copying part of Apple's.  It's almost too obvious, though, so
I have to feel that some of what Apple says must be true (they can't be that
stupid, can they??).

						Jeff White
						University of Pennsylvania
						jeff@eniac.seas.upenn.edu