Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uw-beaver Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!laser-lovers From: laser-lovers@uw-beaver Newsgroups: fa.laser-lovers Subject: Xerox Interpress announcement Message-ID: <1367@uw-beaver> Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 13:02:12 EDT Article-I.D.: uw-beave.1367 Posted: Mon Jul 1 13:02:12 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Jul-85 01:03:29 EDT Sender: daemon@uw-beaver Organization: U of Washington Computer Science Lines: 20 From: Randy FrankAs I understand it, there is a critical difference between what Xerox and Adobe are offering potential vendor who wish to implement their respective page description languages (Interpress and Postscript). Xerox is basically offering a document describing Interpress. Adobe is offering a document plus the option of licensing Postscript interpreter code. Thus, Adobe will actively assist a vendor in getting a Postscript printer to market, where Xerox passively sit by while you develop a product. I would be highly surprised if Xerox does anything to actively assist other laser printer manufacturers in producing (competing) products. Adobe has no such conflict of interest since they are not directly producing a laser printer. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be *very* surprised if Xerox starts licensing Interpress interpreter code so that other laser printer company can quickly get competing Interpress printers to market. -------