🚀 go-pugleaf

>There is an article in the 10/1 issue of the San Jose Mecury News with the
>announcement that DRI has agreed to (effective 11/15) stop supporting the
>current version of GEM and to ship a modified version to avoid charges of
>copyright violations of Apple's software. Apple has claimed that GEM copied
>"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's
>copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and
>icons that substantially resemble the Mac.
>
>-- 
>:From under the bar at Callahan's:   Chuq Von Rospach 
>nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA               {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid}!nsc!chuqui

Is this for real????!!!!!???  How in the world can Apple claim to have a
copyright on the "look and feel" of its Macintosh software when it is such a
close copy of work done at Xerox Parc?  

I don't have any legal expertise, but it looks like Apple doesn't have a leg
to stand on.  I hope that someone with some legal knowledge will comment on
this because I don't see how Apple can get away with it.

Barry Locklear
AT&T Information Systems Labs
ihnp4!druhi!lbl

> >... Apple has claimed that GEM copied
> >"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's
> >copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and
> >icons that substantially resemble the Mac.
>
>:From under the bar at Callahan's:   Chuq Von Rospach 

Actually, I believe Apple has applied for a patent on the pull-down window
approach.  I don't know if the patent has been granted, and, even if it is
granted, that may not guarantee the patent would hold up in court.

If DRI has agreed to change GEM, it was probably to avoid a costly court fight.
Apple is cash rich, and DRI is not.

If Apple succeeds here, how about all the other standalone programs which
now use pull-down windows?  How about regular menus ( a listing of current
options, enter a number to select an option) ---  I'd like to apply for the
patent on that.

On a related note, a company has a new word processor which automatically
completes words as you enter them. (e.g, you type in 'comple' and the program 
adds 'te').  The company has applied for a patent on their revolutionary 
application of AI.



-- 
	Mike Eve     Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
	...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!eve

In article <87@druhi.UUCP> lbl@druhi.UUCP (LocklearLB) writes:
>I don't have any legal expertise, but it looks like Apple doesn't have a leg
>to stand on.  I hope that someone with some legal knowledge will comment on
>this because I don't see how Apple can get away with it.

Apple copyrighted the idea of "pull-down" menus about six months ago, i.e.
the method of moving a on-screen pointer to the top of the screen and having
the menu drop down.  GEM (at least on the ST) has menus which come close to
fitting this description.  I was surprised to see this kind of a patent,
also, but apparently Apple's lawyers made the claim quite solid, as can be
seen by DEC's agreement to alter GEM without a fight.

                                "I'm as doomed as doomed can be!"
                                                -Ed Grimley

                                        Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>

> >There is an article in the 10/1 issue of the San Jose Mecury News with the
> >announcement that DRI has agreed to (effective 11/15) stop supporting the
> >current version of GEM and to ship a modified version to avoid charges of
> >copyright violations of Apple's software. Apple has claimed that GEM copied
> >"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's
> >copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and
> >icons that substantially resemble the Mac.
> >
> >-- 
> >:From under the bar at Callahan's:   Chuq Von Rospach 
> >nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA               {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid}!nsc!chuqui
> 
> Is this for real????!!!!!???  How in the world can Apple claim to have a
> copyright on the "look and feel" of its Macintosh software when it is such a
> close copy of work done at Xerox Parc?  
> 
> I don't have any legal expertise, but it looks like Apple doesn't have a leg
> to stand on.  I hope that someone with some legal knowledge will comment on
> this because I don't see how Apple can get away with it.
> 
> Barry Locklear
> AT&T Information Systems Labs
> ihnp4!druhi!lbl

Apple may have used a windowing system for Lisa and Mac which was pioneered
by Xerox PARC, but so have many other people. Take SUN Microsystems,
symbolics, Microsoft, AT&T, and a slew of other people creating such systems.

GEM, on the other hand, tries to emulate a MAC wondow system, not just any
window system... from the position and look of windows, including the
location of size and grow boxes, and the pattern of the racing stripes in
the title bar.

While it may be argued that Borland invented desk accessories with SideKick,
it was Apple who built them into the system as a separate entity. DRI took
the idea practically verbatim from the Mac replacing the Apple sysmbol by
the work "Desk"

Other menus as well have VERY close Mac counterparts. Oh yes, things are
slightly different, but they are VERY similar.

I hate to bring up the old issue of pull-down menus, but I think that Apple
lawyers missed the boat when they pattented these menus. THeir main
innovation comes from the fact that these menus are decleared and defined
when the program is LAUNCHED, not when the user clicks in a particular
area, or pushes one of the mouse buttons. This changes the entire structure
of the program as far as menu definition code is concerned. More importantly
the menu bar sets a standard for where menus should be found and lets the
first time user of a program quickly discover the general range of features
available from within the application. 

This sort of thing happened a few years ago with the arcade games vs home
computer imitations that were not licensed with the original creators. The
general outcome was that computer software firms such as broderbund no longer
make games which look or play anything like any coin operated game, but which
are still 'arcade' style games. 

							Gus Fernandez

> >There is an article in the 10/1 issue of the San Jose Mecury News with the
> >announcement that DRI has agreed to (effective 11/15) stop supporting the
> >current version of GEM and to ship a modified version to avoid charges of
> >copyright violations of Apple's software. Apple has claimed that GEM copied
> >"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's
> >copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and
> >icons that substantially resemble the Mac.
> >
> >-- 
> >:From under the bar at Callahan's:   Chuq Von Rospach 
> >nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA               {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid}!nsc!chuqui
> 
> Is this for real????!!!!!???  How in the world can Apple claim to have a
> copyright on the "look and feel" of its Macintosh software when it is such a
> close copy of work done at Xerox Parc?  
> 
> I don't have any legal expertise, but it looks like Apple doesn't have a leg
> to stand on.  I hope that someone with some legal knowledge will comment on
> this because I don't see how Apple can get away with it.
> 
> Barry Locklear
> AT&T Information Systems Labs
> ihnp4!druhi!lbl

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

from what i hear (from inside a certain company involved in this) DRI is
just plain chicken and doesnt want to risk a lawsuit
-- 
			god bless Lily St. Cyr
			 -Rocky Horror Picture Show

Name:	James Turner
Mail:	Imagen Corp. 2650 San Tomas Expressway, P.O. Box 58101
	Santa Clara, CA 95052-9400
AT&T:	(408) 986-9400
UUCP:	...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!imagen!negami!turner

> > >... Apple has claimed that GEM copied
> > >"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's
> > >copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and
> > >icons that substantially resemble the Mac.
> >
> >:From under the bar at Callahan's:   Chuq Von Rospach 
> 
> Actually, I believe Apple has applied for a patent on the pull-down window
> approach.  I don't know if the patent has been granted, and, even if it is
> granted, that may not guarantee the patent would hold up in court.
> 
> -- 
> 	Mike Eve     Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
> 	...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!eve

i may be confused but i thought the "out" was that Apple used pop-up menus
and DRI used pull-down. am i wrong ? is there a diff ?

-- 
			god bless Lily St. Cyr
			 -Rocky Horror Picture Show

Name:	James Turner
Mail:	Imagen Corp. 2650 San Tomas Expressway, P.O. Box 58101
	Santa Clara, CA 95052-9400
AT&T:	(408) 986-9400
UUCP:	...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!imagen!negami!turner

In article <2750@vax4.fluke.UUCP> moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) writes:
>Apple copyrighted the idea of "pull-down" menus about six months ago, i.e.
>the method of moving a on-screen pointer to the top of the screen and having
>the menu drop down.  GEM (at least on the ST) has menus which come close to
>fitting this description.  I was surprised to see this kind of a patent,
>also, but apparently Apple's lawyers made the claim quite solid, as can be
>seen by DEC's agreement to alter GEM without a fight.

I'm sure that Jeff knows that GEM is made by DRI, not by DEC.
(E-I-E-I-O, or something....  Don't you love alphabet soup?).

I'm not tremendously surprised -- there were a number of lawsuits
over PAC-MAN* several years ago, alleging that the maze/muncher/powerdots
layout was copyrightable.  The owners of PAC-Man were winning them
(largely thru out of court settlements), right up till the bottom
dropped out of the home video game market.  

* Disclaimer: PAC-MAN is a trademark of someone or other, who
probably has a lawyer on my trail even now....
-- 
"What if they gave a net.flame ... and nobody came?"
Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC
1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick

The pull down menus that apple is so protective of, seem to 
be direct extentions of the UCSD pascal system prompt line concept.
Actually, when you get right down to it, the mac is a blend of the
UCSD pascal system and the Xerox user interface.

If anyone has rights to this technology, it is Xerox, NOT crapple.
We all know this, I just had to say it again.

In article <1790@saber.UUCP> turner@saber.UUCP (D'arc Angel @ The Houses of the Holy) writes:
>
>from what i hear (from inside a certain company involved in this) DRI is
>just plain chicken and doesnt want to risk a lawsuit

Yeah. No balls, no babies. I think it's a crying shame that DRI doesn't
stand up and fight -- what is it going to do to their reputation and that
of GEM? Nobody will believe that's it a mature product anymore. As for
Apple's reputation -- well, it's already shot anyway, this can't dirty
the waters any more than the already are.

    Whom: Rick Westerman                       Phone: +1-317-494-8344
    UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4, seismo, ucbvax}!pur-ee!westerm
    ARPA: westerm@purdue.ecn.ARPA
    USPS: Ag Data Network, Purdue University, West Lafayette IN 47907

                    "I think, therefore I am ... I think?"

In article <1790@saber.UUCP> turner@saber.UUCP (D'arc Angel @ The Houses of the Holy) writes:
>> >Apple has claimed that GEM copied
>> >"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's
>> >copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and
>> >icons that substantially resemble the Mac.
>> 
>> Is this for real????!!!!!???  How in the world can Apple claim to have a
>> copyright on the "look and feel" of its Macintosh software when it is such a
>> close copy of work done at Xerox Parc?  
>> 
>> I don't have any legal expertise, but it looks like Apple doesn't have a leg
>> to stand on.  I hope that someone with some legal knowledge will comment on
>> this because I don't see how Apple can get away with it.
>> 
>from what i hear (from inside a certain company involved in this) DRI is
>just plain chicken and doesnt want to risk a lawsuit

When I was out at Apple last fall, they told me they had a patent on
that type of interface.  I'm not sure that this is correct, but that's
what they said.  If it is the case, they could certainly claim that
DRI was copying the "look and feel" of the Mac interface.

-- 

Shane P. McCarron
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services

UUCP	ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!ahby

[]
Chuq makes these assertions twice now...
> .... The case was specifically for the
> visual copyright, so looking too much like the Mac was exactly what Apple
> was (deservedly) upset about. If you spend 25 man years making someone, and
> someone else borrows your design, does it in 5 many years, charges less,
> and puts you out of business, wouldn't you be upset? Business needs to be
> able to protect its R&D or R&D simply won't get done.
> 
1) Actually, the case was for something more ambiguous than the "visual
copyright", it was for the "look and feel" of the MAC interface.

2) Nowhere has Apple alleged that DRI "borrowed the MAC design."

3) Previously Chuq claimed that the MAC interface was 10 man years, while
GEM represented 1 year. Now its 25 to 5. I personnaly don't have the 
actual figures, I suspect Chuq doesn't either. However, GEM is not a "rip-off"
of MAC software. (It does provide a similar user interface, the software,
its OS interface, and its programmers interface are all unique to GEM.)

4) Puts Apple out of business? What?

5) Apple's R&D investment is protected. MAC software is incompatible with
GEM software and vice versa. GEM is not going to replace the MAC window
environment. Aggresive pricing strategies by Atari and Commodore may indeed
hurt Apple's low end business, as IBM has damaged their share of the 
high end market, but this has nothing to do with GEM.

> Why? If I was the first to design an algorithm and got protection for it,
> I'd expect to be able to protect it.... If I invented an alphabet, I'd sure
> want royalties for it... That is an easy statement to make, I'd love to see
> you back it up with a good reason.
> 

Nowhere has Apple alleged that DRI has misused copyrighted algorithms.

> business, how in the hell was that creative? That is what apple is trying
> to prevent -- if they wrote GEM to be better than Mac, fine -- but if all
> they did was take what Mac developed and carry it across, that is frankly
> illegal.

Well fine, GEM is better than MAC, and, once again, while the visual interface
is indeed similar, it was not a question of "take what MAC developed and carry
it across", Apple doesn't claim this, and it just ain't true.

> 
> NOTHING to do with what apple is doing... I wish we could keep our facts
> straight, folks, instead of these purely emotional rantings...
> -- 

Amen.

And now some allegory. 

Copyrighting the "look and feel" of software is somewhat like trying to
copyright the style and form of a book or painting. Imagine that Jackson Pollack
attempted to copyright abstract expressionism, or that James Joyce copyrighted
stream of consciousness in a novel. Clearly it is desireable to protect
source code and executable image- the expression of the work and investment
in software development- but patenting style is absurd.

Finally, the MAC interface is stylistically a direct descendant of work done
by Xerox, that is in the public domain (or at least Xerox has made no effort
to protect it.) And there are other related workstation windowing environments
around (say on Suns and Appollos and stuff over at Bell.) Apple hasn't even a
clear claim to being the originator of the "look and feel" that they are
protecting.
-- 
						Mark Roddy
						Net working,
						Just reading the news.

					(harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!mroddy)

> > > >... Apple has claimed that GEM copied
> > > >"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's
> > > >copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and
> > > >icons that substantially resemble the Mac.
> > >
> > >:From under the bar at Callahan's:   Chuq Von Rospach 
> > 
> > Actually, I believe Apple has applied for a patent on the pull-down window
> > approach.  I don't know if the patent has been granted, and, even if it is
> > granted, that may not guarantee the patent would hold up in court.
> > 
> > -- 
> > 	Mike Eve     Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
> > 	...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!eve
> 
I personally do not want to see Apple get a patent for there (Xerox) user
friendly operating system.  What we need in the computer world is more
user friendly operating systems, not some small upstart dominating the
whole concept of user friendly machines.  Granting a patent will set 
computer friendliness back too many years.