🚀 go-pugleaf

amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
> In article <9104292009.AA01975@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> rms@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU
> (Richard Stallman) writes:
>    That was the plan I started with.  **Apple is trying to make this
>    illegal**.  The whole point of their lawsuit is to stop people from
>    writing desktop systems.
> 
> I disagree with you there.  The point of their lawsuit is their claim that
> Microsoft violated a contract.  The suit doesn't claim that no one else
> can "write desktop systems," even Macintosh-like ones.

Yes, but as I recall the Apple/Microsoft contract was agreed after a lawsuit
from Apple attempting to prevent Microsoft from writing desktop systems.

Apple also tried to prevent Digital Research from selling its GEM desktop
system; they partially succeeded, settling out of court when DR agreed to
cripple GEM in order to stop it being as usable as the Macintosh.

So although the particular lawsuit currently being fought is for breach of
contract, it remains the case that Apple tries to prevent people from writing
desktop systems by filing lawsuits against them.

In other words, you're quibbling.

> If the reasons you cite for the boycott were true, I'd expect to see a
> bunch of other suits coming out of Apple, not just one accusing
> Microsoft of copyright violation.  For example, I'd expect to see them sue:
> 
>  - Visix, for a product that "looks too much like the Finder,"
>  - NeXT, for things that look like the Control Panel and the Color Picker,
>  - The OSF, because MOTIF has pull-down menus and controls that are
>    "functionally equivalent" to Macintosh controls,
>  - and so on and so on.

I suspect that the only reason they have not done so is that they don't have
the resources and are concentrating on their most immediate competitors. With
all due respect to Visix and NeXT, they just aren't competing with Apple in
terms of market penetration, whereas Microsoft and Digital Research are (or
"were" in the case of DR.)

> Now, the fact is that Apple hasn't bothered (and in fact has encouraged)
> people who build things that don't look like a Macintosh.

So?  If a desktop metaphor is the best metaphor for human-computer
interaction, then ALL computers should be able to use it.

It's like having a big publisher patent the "book" look and feel, but
encouraging people to produce novels which don't have multiple pages or an
index. It just isn't reasonable for the poor fools who then have to read the
things.

>                                                           The suit,
> which I agree is silly, cites the "look and feel" as evidence that
> Microsoft violated a contract with Apple--it doesn't claim that Apple
> has the sole right to build desktop windowing systems.

Indeed. As I said, I recall that it was the lawsuit which *preceded* the
contract which claimed that Apple had the exclusive right to drop-down menus,
multiple resizable windows, icons and the like.

More quibbling.

>                                                           Now, Apple
> has some severe attitude problems sometimes, I admit, but they are
> quite simply not trying to do what you are ranting against them doing.

But they *are*. With DR's GEM, they succeeded. GEM with the crippled desktop
and fall-down menus was nowhere near as good as the previous version; it's
not surprising it died.

A desktop where you can't resize the windows, can't have a wastebasket icon,
can't have expanding boxes to show windows popping up, and so on, is just not
good enough for most people. Apple refuse to let their competitors use those
features, so effectively they are stopping people from writing usable desktop
systems.

Saying "you can't have an index" may not explicitly be preventing someone
from writing an encyclopedia, but it certainly has that effect.


mathew
[ Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer; my knowledge of Apple vs. DR and Apple vs.
  Microsoft may be inaccurate. ]

-- 
mathew - mathew@mantis.co.uk or mcsun!ukc!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew