Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!lll-winken!arisia!sgi!shinobu!odin!odin.corp.sgi.com!portuesi
From: portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: uSoft/Apple and user interfaces
Message-ID: 
Date: 10 Aug 89 12:24:10 GMT
References: <9025@cs.Buffalo.EDU> <341@xrtll.UUCP>
Sender: news@odin.SGI.COM
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 44
In-reply-to: mark@xrtll.UUCP's message of 9 Aug 89 14:46:43 GMT

In article <341@xrtll.UUCP> mark@xrtll.UUCP (Mark Vange) writes:

   > So my basic question is: why leave these guys alone and only go after
   > uSoft and HP???
   > ---
   Probably because both C-A and Tandy sales together do not add up to uSoft
   sales.  Why is HP in the fray?

Because HP's New Wave package includes software technology (hot links
between applications) that Apple doesn't have and is trying to put
into System 7.0.

   It's quite obvious that if they should win, everyone else (inclusing IBM
   with their PS/2) will be knocking on their door to hammer out the details of
   a "liscensing" agreement.

At this point, Apple doesn't look like they have overwhelming odds for
victory, and much of the suit has been thrown out of court.  So I
don't think too many people are worrying about making "licensing"
agreements with Apple.

As an aside, my personal feeling about the issue is that Apple should
have a right to copyright the audio-visual aspects of their system,
such as the look of their scrollbars, the look and format of their
windows, the Trashcan icon, and pull-down menus.  I do not believe
they have the right to copyright such broad concepts as overlapping
windows, icons (even traffic signs use them), and menus.  The tricky
part is making the distinction between the cosmetic features which are
part of the Apple interface (which they certainly have a right to
protect) and the general concepts implemented in their interface,
which should be public domain.

One thing which does disturb me is that overlapping windows are still
one of the issues up for debate, as it was one of the differences
between Microsoft Windows 1.0 and 2.0.  I've seen lots and lots of
different windowing systems, and I can only recall two that offered
support for tiled windows only (Windows 1.0 and the Andrew Window
Manager).

			--M

--
Michael Portuesi	Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc.
			portuesi@SGI.COM