| 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[3]: More irony (though more loosely related) |
| By Neolander on 2012-09-02 15:54:58 |
|
> "http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle..." haha! I remember that. I also remember my first thought: what, the standard ipod can't?? For real??? There likely was an app for that :P |
 - Score: 0 |
| RE[2]: dear Thom |
| By mrstep on 2012-09-02 21:24:16 |
|
I loved my Atari ST (hey, I could afford it, unlike a Mac!), but there's little doubt that it was largely a knock-off of the Mac interface. AmigaOS was actually very different, which just may have accounted for why they weren't targeted by Apple. True multitasking, different look, odd things like splitting the screen into vertical slices with different resolutions, etc. - not really a Mac. I liked GEM, and certainly the 'update' that split the browser into 2 fixed windows and gimped other parts pretty much insured that its days (PC) were numbered. But - especially considering that the only thing that saved Microsoft was the fine print of the licensing agreements they had - I'm not sure that Apple was wrong in trying to defend their IP. Seems like legally they had a leg to stand on (right or wrong!), and as a company that pretty much defines some of the actions they took. Anyways, the anti-Apple slant is certainly always implied if not always stated. Indignant protests over verdicts against companies that are blatantly ripping off IP (functionally and/or window dressing and certainly look of devices) are amusing, if not really on target. I was happy to see a jury agreed that flagrant and willful copying of protected designs isn't a legitimate business approach. |
| - Score: 1 |
| You Apple fanatics are just way too touchy |
| By vitae on 2012-09-03 09:44:23 |
| If all you wanted to read was sunshine being blown up Apple's *** you could have just stayed in a Mac Addict forum. But you come here, and then you complain that Thom picks on your favorite company. It's not enough that Apple relieves you of large quantities of money, but you feel like you have to keep returning to a forum you perceive as hostile to "defend their honor" or whatever it is you're doing? |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Comment by kovacm |
| By phoudoin on 2012-09-03 13:53:13 |
|
> > 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. Neither GEM or MacOS classic get true pervasive, automatic multitasking built-in. But, still, GEM were capable of cooperative multitasking/time-sharing with AES as soon as 1985, and it was perfectly possible to run one or more accessories *and* an application, the only difference being that only the (single) application could have a menubar, but both application and accessories could have window(s) and CPU on (explicit or implicit) yield periods. I then had developed a Minitel terminal emulator for Atari ST that was running as an accessory, even while in background, without resorting to any hack for that but just the idle AES event. Cooperative multitasking became possible in MacOS 5, released in 1987. The technical difference then was that the menubar was not anymore locked to one single application but follow application window(s)'s focus (with a bad side effect: no window, no easy way to switch to its menubar ;-) ). Anyway, that's old times, and probably nobody care anymore. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Comment by kovacm |
| By kees1869 on 2012-09-04 12:13:41 |
|
And so it was. The Amiga however beat both of them with it's far more advanced OS and custom hardware. preemptive-multitasking custom hardware (bit-blitter, copper, dma, better sound etc.) color basically what Atari wanted to have but they were being cheap... |
| - Score: 1 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |