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.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2012-08-30
Member since:
2011-10-12
It feels like most of the articles written by the author have a certain negative/ironic/sarcastic/judgemental character towards a particular company. We're always hearing 'one side of the story'.
It's certainly ironic considering how this particular person is very judgemental of other individuals who he claims are doing the exact same thing.
You're not doing your writing justice; there's always good points in your articles but right now, most of it looks like trolling.
Maybe I'm paranoid, maybe it's just me.
Member since:2010-02-17
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2011-08-04
I have to agree; it's not about disputing facts. I'm sure Apple ( as well as many other companies) has used shady legal tactics to disrupt or eliminate competition. But the obvious slant that this site has taken is a little too much for me. I used to enjoy reading about operating systems and other related stories, but when nearly every other story is about Apple and how evil they are, I guess it's time to go. I'm not an Apple fan, but this is too much.
Member since:2005-06-29
OSNews is, and always will be, going with a flow - a flow determined by the interests of the person doing 99.9% of the news. Back when Eugenia did her thing, she had a flow too. A few months with a focus on this, then a few months a focus on that. The same applies to me. Right now, my focus is on the fact that I'm seeing history being rewritten before my very eyes, and I want to do something to counter that. That's my prerogative as the person doing 99.9% of the work here.
I will not hide or ignore facts that are inconvenient to you. I will not go out of my way to treat Apple fans any differently from any other fans. Much like how Windows 8 and Metro get their fair share of criticism from me, or Android's severe upgrade mess, I will not tone those down because I might step on a few toes. We're all adults here.
If I'm ostensibly lying or presenting false information - point it out and we all learn. If you feel my opinion is wrong, argue your case - much like I have to do every day here in the comments sections. You don't see me run away from that either. And, as always, feel free to write an article in case you want more prominence than a comment can give you. We point this possibility out time and time again, but somehow, people like you never take us up on it.
That you never take me up on the article offer, and the fact that you're failing to come up with arguments and instead just shout BIAS! makes it very clear to me I argued my case pretty damn well with this article.
Member since:2006-01-25
I actually agree with most of that. I have found myself agreeing with you on many things, and disagreeing on others. I often find myself defending Apple on some issue you post about, and other times the opposite. I say, for the most part, keep doing what you are doing.
That said, since you asked for points of objection about the current article...
Emphasis mine. I think that is a frankly a giant leap... Im not saying your wrong (you could be right), but the evidence you presented is definitely open to other interpretations.
Maybe they believed Amiga Workbench was different enough (it was pretty unique in many ways) that they would have trouble convincing a judge and jury to side with them on the few issues they could have attacked them on. Unlike the DRI and Windows 2.0 case, it is hard to make a case against Commodore over trade dress - workbench would never be confused with the GUI of a macintosh. They did have a "trash" icon, but it looked distinctly different than Apple's (unlike the one in GEM which looked almost identical) Other than the trash icon, almost all the other paradigms were distinctly different than other GUIs (include Macintosh)...
Anyway, Im not defending Apple at all. Im just playing devils advocate. I think the whole trade dress thing is, for the most part, stupid and nonsensical. I just think that maybe you are going overboard reading the dregs in the bottom of the tea cup - I don't think there is enough information to really say that Apple's litigation history boils down purely to fear of competition.
Member since:2011-06-03
Keep up the great work Thom.
People want to be reassured that they "made the right choice". A lot of marketing is aimed at giving you a psychological boost directly to the emotional side of your brain to evoke strong emotions. By writing the facts, you can drive a wedge between reality and the fantasy world that has been marketed to people. At the end of the day, the facts are still the facts.
Member since:2012-01-13
Member since:2006-04-22
Member since:2012-08-29
Apple is a company, and the only interest is the money.
Some decisions are good for all of us (webkit, bsd improvements...) and other decisions not benefit us as consumers. :-\
But instead of deleting comments, maybe you can learn something interesting from other companies:
http://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html
<joke>
Unless you receive money from Google aka "Don't be evil". ;-)
</joke>
I'm not a lawyer and don't care me the patent war from companies.
I like C, ASM, OS programming, PICs, DIY, computers... and lately OSNews only is focused in not technical news (and always from one side)
This is my opinion and I say this from the affection I have to the OSNews site. Sorry if this is a criticism comment. But i think is better say this.
Member since:2009-07-18
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.
Member since:2010-04-27
Member since:
2005-07-06
A few years later, MacOS 7 was apparently ported to the PC... where that "superior" (or so the narrative goes - oh, and a base for Macintosh OS until 9) OS ran on top of DOS, just like Win 3.x or GEM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_project
Icing on the cake: the CEO under which the costly m68k -> PowerPC migration happened, admitted that this was a mistake, that Apple should have went with Intel back then already...
http://macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=7045
(but it being a mistake seemingly didn't stop the PR machine, the cult, like with the ridiculous campaign of "PowerPC 'supercomputer on a chip' G4" based on a few hand-picked SIMD benchmarks)
PS. And in the general spirit of pointing out ~contemporary tech from the past - beside Newton and Tandy Zoomer there was also... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amstrad#1990s
While seemingly a quite horrible device (links in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PenPad ) ...that's beside the point - all of those very early models were more or less horrible, anyway (starting with the basic idea of handwriting recognition - can you read reliably even your own handwriting, NVM from other people?)
Edited 2012-08-30 21:42 UTC
Member since:2006-05-30
Member since:2005-07-06
Irrelevant in the context of historical and "more loosely related" irony (you do understand the concept, right? Did you actually read even the title of my post?), NVM how "ran on top of DOS, just like Win 3.x or GEM" is 100% factual (why do you think I wrote "DOS"?) - and certainly goes against the usual "superior" narrative about all that the classic Mac OS supposedly was.
You remind me about those "bitter, broken and have a bunch of straws you are desperately clutching at [...] take a break and chill [...] proving to be a very sore loser" words that I read somewhere in this thread...
Member since:2006-05-30
You understand very little about what they actually did. That much is clear. DRDOS was a DOS compatible OS, but it wasn't just a DOS clone. Do some research.
What they actually did was more akin to Windows 95.. the UI layer and shell ran as a user land process on a fully multitasking OS with drivers and a kernel. Again, DOS didn't really manage to do most of this till version 7, which was the basis of Windows 95.
Not really, because you don't actually seem to understand the basics of what they achieved. If all they did was make a little shell that just wrapped up DOS calls (like Windows 1.0), then maybe you'd be on to something. Read the capabilities of DRDOS, it was fcuking awesome sauce and made DOS (both MS and PC) look like a toy.
Member since:2005-07-06
You are indeed very "bitter, broken and have a bunch of straws you are desperately clutching at [...] take a break and chill [...] proving to be a very sore loser" - that much is clear, when you imply I couldn't even read an article that I stumbled upon, some time ago (it's not a quickly thrown in discovery of today, the DOS irony bit just recalled it), in my general exploration of & some interest about the old OS field.
It was running on top of a DOS (the horror! ...or how the narrative went, and why it's historically ironic), GEM or Win 3.x could ran on top of it as well.
Either way, you yourself mention it was at most like Win95 ...which just shows how irrelevant what you say is, in context - Win95 was derided on the very same basis in the usual narrative.
Edited 2012-08-31 01:08 UTC
Member since:2006-05-30
Hahaha!! Yeah, except Win 95 is a very misunderstood OS. You should look in to it. If you believe that all Win 95 was was a shell on top of DOS 7.x, you're pretty far from reality. That may have been the popular misconception, but it is not reality.Here you go, I'll save you the google:
Windows 95 actually runs on top of DOS. Microsoft was lying when it said Windows 95 got rid of DOS entirely.
Or:
Windows 95 doesn't need DOS at all. You boot up right into Windows, and you only use DOS to run old DOS programs.
Both are wrong. Microsoft isn't guilty of lying; it's guilty of overhyping Windows 95 in the year before the new operating system was released. Windows doesn't run on top of DOS; it runs with the help of some old (and fully debugged) code that is essentially DOS code. Given the tradeoffs involved -- developing a reasonably stable system that could handle 16-bit Windows programs, 32-bit Windows programs and DOS programs without taking up huge amounts of memory -- Microsoft probably did the right thing by continuing to use much of the same code it employed in Windows for Workgroups (Windows 3.11). Windows 95 cannot run without that code (the so-called DOS services), and, in fact, cannot even boot up without that code. This does mean that much of the underlying code in Windows 95 is 16-bit code, and this is why Windows 95 is properly termed a 16/32-bit system and not a true 32-bit operating system.
Could Microsoft have changed most of that 16-bit code to 32-bit code? Of course. But for what purpose? 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. (DOS services do not need to use instructions more than 16 bits long, in other words.)
So Windows 95 needs DOS in the sense that it needs the DOS services. It doesn't need DOS itself, if you think of DOS as the command prompt.
Source: http://www.technofileonline.com/texts/bkw95myths.html
All of this sounds *exactly* like the situation your article describes. As I said, the DRDOS provided services, it wasn't doing the traditional DOS role, as you implied.
Member since:2005-07-06
Yeah, and one of the points - mentioned by me more than once already - is how silly the usual narrative about "DOS-based" Win versions was...
(but again, also historically ironic, considering 1) how it was relatively often uttered by the users of Mac OS 2) the method of that OS7 x86)
Really, it's a high time to stop that "bitter, broken and have a bunch of straws you are desperately clutching at [...] take a break and chill [...] proving to be a very sore loser" of yours...
Member since:2011-06-22
LOLWUT? I think this guy has 16-bit x86 code confused with ARM Thumb or something...
Member since:2008-06-02
Ah yes, the "G4 is supercomputer" BS - which was based solely on some outdated US export restrictions, which considered CPUs to be supercomputers if they exceeded a certain number of Gflops. By the same absurd standards, the PS2 was also considered a super computer:
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=950767
For most technology companies, something that would be one of their most shameful moments. But Apple? I'm not even sure that would make the top 10 in Apple marketing hall-of-shame. After all, this is the same company that tried to make random playback sound like an amazing new feature, when the 1st-gen iPod shuffle came out:
http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20050112043302/http://www.apple.com/ipod...
(WARNING: may cause adverse reaction for those with severe allergies to bullshit)
Or there was the time that they tried to associate themselves with George Harrison, in a cynical attempt to cash-in on his death:
http://web.archive.org/web/20011203234543/http://www.apple.com/
Member since:2005-08-18
haha! I remember that. I also remember my first thought: what, the standard ipod can't?? For real???
Member since:2011-05-12
Member since:2010-03-08
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
Member since:2010-12-16
Apple could not use intel chips before 2006.
simple reason: Mac OS was not CPU agnostic.
Mac OS X was. (but it came 5 years later.)
...beside fact that Intel only match SIMD part of Motorola/Apple (4 years old) AltiVec with SSE2...
that is called "piece of crap" - Apple did use AltiVec to speed up Composite Desktop in early 2000s while Microsoft made Composite Desktop in 2006. and it require DirectX 9 GPU... lol!
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:
2007-11-24
Member since:2005-07-06
Yes.
http://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/5/ (and 6 & 7; also, keep in mind that most of those were "toy" Amigas - perhaps irrelevant for end users, but certainly relevant WRT company outlook)
I guess it was even quite clear to some already back then that Amiga, with its very tightly coupled hardware and software, was essentially stuck at the 500 generation.
Edited 2012-08-30 22:15 UTC
Member since:2012-07-28
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2009-03-17
Member since:
2005-08-18
Member since:2011-08-04
Yeah, and I don't see it changing. I agree with Thom, he is free to pursue whatever direction he sees fit, but that's why I think I'm done here; this is becoming more like a blog than OS News. Not that it's Thom's fault, I appreciate all the work it must take, but the same point over and over is just something I'd rather do without. Cheers.
Member since:2012-06-06
Member since:
2007-02-18
Member since:
2011-05-12
I didn't know the future of computing went back 30 years in to the past.
Maybe if it's relevant to today or the future, but Apple back then isn't Apple today. It's not like we still put up walls to keep the Roman legions out.
Still, I enjoy a bit of history even when it's biased towards a goal of convincing an anonymous group of people that are trying to change the past.
Member since:2007-08-27
Member since:2011-05-12
Member since:2005-07-06
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --George Santayana
Member since:2011-05-12
Member since:
2012-08-26
Thom
I, too, appreciate these articles and commentary.
Apple deserves 'bashing' right now. Perhaps it is singing to the choir or pissing off the vocal fan boys who post here, but I can assure you many read sites like OSNews who don't post.
I have been coming here since the Eugenia days not signing up to actually post until just a few days ago.
Thank you.
Member since:2006-04-22
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-06-09
Member since:
2006-12-05
I really wish it would have. They seem more and more like a crooked, anti-competitive, patent trolling company every single time they make the news these days. They're pussies that are terrified of competition and will use downright pathetic and anti-competitive methods to kill their competition. Sorry Apple fans, I refuse to kiss their ass. This is the kind of company that should be busted for being *against* everything the U.S. economy is about. They are a business, and they are AGAINST even the idea of competition from any other business.
That sounds like Apple alright... apparently they haven't changed over the years, they just got worse. Ironically, even according to the dead god that Apple fans worship, back when he was alive he said that his company "steals" because that's "what great artists do." Wow... WTF has happened to that company... sounds like the fame and money rotted their brains and they just don't give a shit about anyone else but themselves now. Because, you know, only Apple is capable of innovating. No one else even knows what the word means if you ask them.
Edited 2012-08-31 10:06 UTC
Member since:
2005-07-06
I will not bash Thom, as some above, in fact I'd like to point out why I mostly like his stuff. From the text I went to see about GEM/2, then I found out from that page that desqview was made by quarterdeck, whom I remember from qemm-times, then checking into that I found out they also made Mosaic. So overall I came out knowing more than before.
Thom +1
Member since:
2011-05-12
"At this point Apple Computer sued DRI in what would turn into a long dispute over the "look and feel" of the GEM/1 system, which was an almost direct copy of the Macintosh (with some elements bearing a closer resemblance to those in the earlier Lisa, available since January 1983)."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_Environment_Manager
Emphasis added. This seems like a more logical reason than what Thom claims as fact: "Apple wasn't happy with having to deal with competition, so the company started to sue everyone it thought it could get away with."
This would also explain why they didn't sue Commodore over AmigaOS. I don't buy Thom's explanation that Steve Jobs knew Commodore would go bust anyway a decade later. Science has never been able to prove that people have paranormal powers.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2011-05-12
Member since:
2008-09-24
Member since:
2009-08-22
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?
Member since:
2010-12-16
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 !!
Member since:2008-06-02
Member since:
2010-12-16
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.
Member since:
2010-12-16
Member since:
2010-12-16
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??
no, it can not. You have ACC programs, that could run in parallel (loaded all time) but it was not multitasking.
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
) 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
for article about GEM from user that used GEM for more than 15 years... 
Edited 2012-08-31 18:35 UTC
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:2006-09-27
Member since:2006-06-09
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.
Member since:
2009-09-17
Corporations exist to create profit. If Apple sees a competitive threat to its future profits then it is going to use whatever means available (that it can get away with) to block it. Apples behavior as a business entity is the result of the broken patent law, and the complicity of its customers. People who buy Apple products either don't care about or don't believe in the potential damage that their business practices may cause in the long term. Apple has an incredible PR machine which will spin a story to ensure continued complicity in its customers (and anyone else willing to listen) of its vision of the industry. I am glad to see Thom writing articles like this to provide some push back to that PR machine. He is certainly not alone in his beliefs or in doing this.
It is also interesting to see these patent issues being portrayed in terms of "stealing" and what is "right" or "wrong". Patent law gives an individual a temporary monopoly granted by the state. It isn't some sort of inalienable right. There is no intrinsic right to control of an idea just because you came up with it. This legal framework was created _SOLELY_ to spur innovation. Rewarding investment through a temporary monopoly was a quick and effective way to do this. To frame a patent violation as theft (as in physical property) is absurd. It is especially absurd given the questionable nature of these patents. The question we need to ask is, "Does this help or hurt innovation?". When it comes to patents on rectangles with rounded corners, I know where I stand.
Edited 2012-09-01 16:47 UTC
Member since:
2006-02-20
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?