| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Apple vs. DRI: the other look-and-feel lawsuit |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-08-30 17:43:01 |
| We all know about Apple's look-and-feel lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows 2.0, but this wasn't the only look-and-feel lawsuit Apple filed during those years. Digital Research, Inc., the company behind GEM, also found itself on the pointy end of Apple's needle. Unlike the lawsuit against Microsoft, though, Apple managed to 'win' the one against DRI. |
|
| RE: Comment by MOS6510 |
| By Thom_Holwerda on 2012-08-31 14:28:23 |
|
That statement is disputed with a citation needed. Selective perception. |
 - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510 |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-08-31 14:29:56 |
| I officially dispute your statement. |
| - Score: 3 |
| Evil Apple |
| By Phucked on 2012-08-31 14:45:46 |
|
Apple has been an evil, crybaby of a company afraid of competition for 30 years. They have held back progress and innovation for 30 years. Apple are a scumbag of a company and the people who feed them money are no better. Apple is Scum!!! |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[6]: More irony (though more loosely related) |
| By nutt on 2012-08-31 15:25:56 |
|
> Much of that code is unavoidably 16-bit in instruction length, so making each instruction 32 bits long would add 16 zero bits to one end of each piece of code. This would waste memory (and possibly even slow down some operations) without gaining anything useful. LOLWUT? I think this guy has 16-bit x86 code confused with ARM Thumb or something... |
| - Score: 2 |
| You find this telling? |
| By Tony Swash on 2012-08-31 16:12:08 |
| You seem to find it significant that Apple chose to sue companies who were using what it considered to be it's IP when those companies used that IP to take away Apple's business but didn't bother to sue when the IP did not lead to loss of business. How and why is that anything other than what one would expect? To say this shows Apple was 'afraid' of competition seems a bit of reach to me. Doesn't it just show that it was the use of what Apple considered to be it's IP to take away business that Apple considered the problem. Isn't that just normal? |
| - Score: 4 |
| is it possible... |
| By kovacm on 2012-08-31 17:50:49 |
|
...that you write about DRi ? :D ok, let see what you did wrote. --- LOL !!!!! you will wrote how Apple sue DRi and did not mention that Microsoft STOLE 1:1 CP/M from GARY KILDALL ??????????????????????? and that MICROSOFT DID SELL CRAPY "DOS" (CP/M) for next 10 years ?????? --- please Thom, you could* do more damage than good with your upside/down writing :( *if somebody take seriously your writing. Edited 2012-08-31 17:59 UTC |
| - Score: -1 |
| Comment by kovacm |
| By kovacm on 2012-08-31 18:11:47 |
|
ok, beside that, article is ok. FEW FACTS: Atari ST was: 1. 10% faster than original Mac 2. have 4x more memory 3. have 30 bigger screen resolution (640x400, 72KHz) 4. have DMA ASCI port (first "win" printer (computer did all calculation), CD0ROM, 2MB/s) 5. 2.5 x CHEAPER than Mac !! 6. could run Mac software with all above benefits ! Apple Mac was crapware !! |
| - Score: 1 |
| Comment by kovacm |
| By kovacm on 2012-08-31 18:16:37 |
|
next fact: Apple essentially gave Microsoft opportunity to gain monopoly with DOS, later Windows. if Apple did not cripple GEM, and if Gary REALLY believe that GUI is future of computing (THIS IS BIGGER PROBLEM) Microsoft would not have a chance. anyhow: Apple GAVE MICROSOFT opportunity. |
| - Score: 0 |
| Comment by kovacm |
| By kovacm on 2012-08-31 18:17:54 |
|
> Ten elements were not covered by Microsoft's license, but the courts ruled that these were not worthy of protection. because od this, Apple today license everything that it can! they learn lesson ;) |
| - Score: 1 |
| Comment by kovacm |
| By kovacm on 2012-08-31 18:20:10 |
|
> The goal was to please Apple into not suing the heck out of DRI, and this strategy eventually succeeded. this strategy cripple GEM enough to become essentially same as crapy Windows 1.0. btw GEM for Atari had proportional scroll bars in 1985. Apple got same with... Mac OS 8?? > more importantly, it could multitask. no, it can not. You have ACC programs, that could run in parallel (loaded all time) but it was not multitasking. > Considering IBM was Apple's biggest competitor, the company was adamant in ensuring the graphical user interface did not find its way to IBM-compatible machines. this is quite true! do you know why Apple did not sue Atari regarding GEM? same thing as Amiga: because they believe that Atari/Amiga are not threat. (which come true ;)) > You know what the irony is of all this? One of the main developers behind GEM was Lee Jay Lorenzen, and get this: before joining DRI, he worked at Xerox PARC on the very same user interfaces upon which the Macintosh was built. In other words, Apple took what was partially his work, implemented it for the Macintosh, and then sued over Lorenzen's own post-Xerox interface! The irony is so thick here you could cut it with a knife. Xerox get their share fair: 12% of Apple!! later, same Xerox, did sue Apple when Apple sue Microsoft. --- otherwise, you have Approval :D for article about GEM from user that used GEM for more than 15 years... :) Edited 2012-08-31 18:35 UTC |
| - Score: 0 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |