🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May2.214336.10127@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> huntley@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Haydn Huntley) writes:
>Actually, if you think about it for a minute or two, you might see
>some similarities between Intel trying to protect their monopoly on
>producing the 386 and Apple's protecting the specific graphical
>elements of their user interface.

	It is my understanding that the FSF is merely supporting the
League For Programming Freedom by participating in all of its boycotts.  

	It is debatable whether or not Intel's misbehavior is the LPF's
concern.  Simply arguing that Intel is "legally blocking others from
making similar products," is not enough.  You must also show that this
is a software issue.  If you accept the idea that a monopoly on the "386"
trademark is a software issue, then should the LPF also fight those who
have patented various types of power supplies?  How about design patents
on computer furniture?  Mind you, I'm for dramatic reductions of all
intellectual property incentives, but the LPF is only concerned with
programming.

	Even if you decide that this 386 business is the LPF's concern,
then you still have to argue that Intel is one of the "worst offenders"
(the LPF boycott criterion) and that an Intel boycott of would be
effective, especially in light the fact that Intel is losing in court.
Also, Motorola and TI have misbehaved at least as badly as Intel has.

>Also, in both cases, the suits are over disputed contracts,
>not over the copyrightability of either the 386 instruction set, or
>the Macintosh user interface's look & feel.

	It is my understanding that Apple is suing Microsoft and
Hewlett-Packard for copyright infringement, and that one of Microsoft's
defenses is that if Microsoft is infringing, then their infringement
may be covered by a contract that they had with Apple.  I specifically
recall reading an article in a newspaper (Wall Street Journal?) that
said that the judge had rejected Apple's request that the "total
concept and feel" copyright infringement test be used in the suit, and
I recall a long court transcript posted to gnu.misc.discuss about two
months ago, in which the judge rejected HP's request that Apple's
copyright be invalidated on the grounds that Apple had committed fraud
against the copyright office.  That same transcript mentioned lists
of specific MacOS features found in HP's New Wave and Microsoft Windows 2
(I'm told that Apple has extended the suit to Windows 3 in the past couple
of weeks), and that the judge had ruled that he was bound by some precedent
that was only binding in the 9th circuit (which includes California) not
to rule on the question of whether or not the items in the Apple's lists
were covered by copyright until some later phase of the trial.  I doubt
that the judge would rule on these questions if it wasn't a copyright
infringement lawsuit.

	When I informed Amanda Walker (the person who originally posted
the claim that Apple's lawsuit was strictly breach of contract) about
my recollections and asked her if she could recall where she'd read or
heard her information, she said she'd have to look into it.  Until
somebody posts something definitively showing that Apple's lawsuit is
strictly breach of contract (and if this is so, why is HP also a defendant?),
please don't perpetuate this rumor.

Adam J. Richter			adam@soda.berkeley.edu
409 Evelyn Avenue, Apt. 312	....!ucbvax!soda!adam
Albany, CA 94706		Home: (415)528-3209