Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Aug 2012 17:43 UTC
Legal 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.
Permalink for comment 533489
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by kovacm
by kovacm on Fri 31st Aug 2012 18:20 UTC
kovacm
Member since:
2010-12-16

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 ;) for article about GEM from user that used GEM for more than 15 years... ;)

Edited 2012-08-31 18:35 UTC

Reply Score: 0