🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <HF0815w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

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

I'd be very interested in any references you have for this...

   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.

Nope.  DR agreed to change GEM so that it was no longer an out-and-out
copy of the Macintosh interface.  Lest anyone misundertstand me, I fully
support Apple's right to protect their user interface.  However, the
Macintosh is not by any means the only, or even the best, way to do a
desktop interface.  This is especially so on the kinds of machines that
the FSF has been concentrating on so far.

   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.

It in no way "remains the case."  Apple has immediately opposed every
attempt someone has made to duplicate the Macintosh interface, or major
portions of it:

 - Suing DRI, making them modify GEM.
 - Buying (and subsequently gutting) Cadmus, who did the CadMac (an
   implementation of the Macintosh interface and toolbox under UNIX).
 - Suing Microsoft for making Windows more like the Mac than they had
   agreed to.

They have *not* even touched companies who have built desktop interfaces
that *don't* duplicate the Mac's interface, such as:

 - Visix with Looking Glass
 - Sun with OpenWindows and the File Manager
 - IXI with X.Desktop
 - GeoWorks with GEOS and Ensemble
 - NeXT with NeXTStep
 - IBM with CUA
 - The Open Software Foundation with Motif

and so on.  Granted, some of us are small compared to Microsoft, and one
could argue that Apple's going after the deepest pockets first.
However, I find it hard to believe that Sun, IBM, and the OSF are "not
worth worrying about yet."

As long as the FSF isn't interested in duplicating the Mac, I see no
impediment at all.  Now, I must admit that for purely capitalist reasons,
I am not too unhappy that there is no "GNU Desktop" yet :), but I still
disagree with the supposed reasons for its lack of existence.

   In other words, you're quibbling.

No, I'm not.  I have seen *no* evidence of a generalized legal offensive
of the sort that you and others have been asserting.  All I have seen
are vague extrapolations of what you think the HP/Microsoft suit means.
I'm quite willing to be convinced (being in a particularly vulnerable
position if such an offensive does develop), but you will have to
provide reasonable evidence of it.  I am not willing to assume that Apple
is "guilty until proven innocent."

I also continue to wonder why no one has suggested resisting other legal
actions which are much more directly threatening to free software, such as
software patents (the LPF is doing some good work here, but I see no
boycotts of AT&T or Unisys, for example).

   > 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.

Correct.  This is, in fact, the reason Visix makes money at the moment :).
You seem to be assuming that the Macintosh interface is the only way to
present a desktop metaphor.  I don't agree whatsoever.  I don't even
think it's the best way, although it's one of the best currently on the
market.

Now, Apple's ad campaigns and PR may try to make this identification, but
that certainly doesn't mean you have to buy into it, any more than you
have to buy into the idea that Subarus are the only cars that can drive
around brick walls :).

   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.

It's more like copyrighting an encyclopedia and requiring other would-be
encyclopedia publishers to go research their own facts.  Not at all
unreasonable.  Now, if what the FSF really wants is a "free Finder," that's
one thing, but that's a different issue than wanting a GNU desktop interface.

   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.

I hate to break this to you, but Apple does indeed have a patent on a
pull-down menu bar at the top of the screen.  Look at the Apple mouse
patent...

I do not recall any lawsuit preceding the Microsoft agreement (which was,
after all, made many years ago).  Please provide a reference so that I can
go look up the case.

   More quibbling.

Only if I accept your assumptions.  As you may have noticed, I do not...

   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.

I used (and developed under) the first version of GEM: it was a
straightforward copy of the Macintosh interface.  The fact that DRI
couldn't do their own design is not an indictment of Apple, IMNSHO.

   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.

Resizable windows are certainly no invention of Apple.  As for the
others, I beg to differ :).

   Apple refuse
   to let their competitors use those features, so effectively they are
   stopping people from writing usable desktop systems.

Nope.  Saying you can't just use the Finder as a spec does, however,
require such people to do some design work of their own.  I will admit
that many people don't like doing this, and would rather just re-implement
someone else's design.  I'm not one of them.

--
Amanda Walker						      amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc.					...!uunet!visix!amanda
-- 
"The value of a profane thing lies in what it usefully does; the value
 of a sacred thing lies in what it is."		--W. H. Auden