🚀 go-pugleaf

amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) wrote:
>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.

I can't speak for Apple's legal drones (I'm not even on speaking terms
*with* them), but something very sneaky is happening here.  Apple
claim that the look and feel of their window system is copyrightable, parts
of it were licensed to Microsoft, and Microsoft have overstepped those
parts.  Microsoft claim the same thing, except to say that they have not
overstepped the license.  The judge is not ruling on aspects on which
there is no disagreement, namely that the look and feel of Apple's
window system is copyrightable.  Still, there's some sort of strong
tacit implication in the battle, and either way, Apple win and the
rest of the world loses.

>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:

I think Apple are conserving their legal resources.  Still, thank you
for hope; copyright legislation requires prompt prosecution of known
infringements, and Apple's delay may constitute an abandonment of their
copyright, even if it exists.

>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.  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.  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.

I don't know... when Apple made threatening noises about the Atari ST's
pull-down menus, they got changed to drop-down and I thought it
was the stupidest thing imaginable.  Apple seem to be trying.

>Better to boycott Microsoft for it's recent Windows / OS/2 fiasco, or
>Sun and OSF for trying to assert UI standards prematurely, or Unisys for
>the LZW patent, or any number of other companies...  I have found such
>things far more restraining as a programmer than I have ever found
>Apple, and I even work for a company who you'd *expect* to get
>problems from Apple, if they were as antagonistic as you claim them to
>be.  However, in reality, they seem to actually *like* what we're doing.

Well, then, thank you for telling us about your experiences.  They
don't agree with mine, but they're at least as valid, being closer
to first-hand.  I'll stick to my beliefs for now, but do a bit more
research sometime to see how valid they are.

>Your logic may be impeccable, but I don't accept your basic assumption.

Thank you for disagreeing politely; I hope I have done the same.
-- 
	-Colin