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.
Thread beginning with comment 533325
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: dear Thom
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 30th Aug 2012 21:30 UTC in reply to "dear Thom"
Member since:

Facts are facts. Come up with counter-arguments, or accept that your view might not be accurate.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: dear Thom
by helix on Thu 30th Aug 2012 21:53 in reply to "RE: dear Thom"
helix Member since:

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: dear Thom
by henderson101 on Thu 30th Aug 2012 22:19 in reply to "RE: dear Thom"
henderson101 Member since:

Facts are never facts, silly old chap. Wars are won by being the power that crushes all others in a conflict. History is written by the victors.

But that's not anything to do with what I said. You know what I meant, and if you didn't take it on board, I pity you.

Serious suggestion, take a break and chill. You're trashing your credibility and proving to be a very sore loser.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: dear Thom
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 30th Aug 2012 22:32 in reply to "RE[2]: dear Thom"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

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.

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[2]: dear Thom
by PieterGen on Fri 31st Aug 2012 07:58 in reply to "RE: dear Thom"
PieterGen Member since:

Thom, please do continue with your articles. Apple is screwing consumers; it's a good thing you post facts so we can check if their statements are correct. So continue!

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: dear Thom
by brichpmr on Fri 31st Aug 2012 10:01 in reply to "RE: dear Thom"
brichpmr Member since:

Thom, please reveal for us how many PARC engineers ended up going to work at Apple following the famous visits by Apple to Xerox PARC. I seem to recall that there definitely was cross-pollination at the time.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: dear Thom
by capi_x on Fri 31st Aug 2012 13:32 in reply to "RE: dear Thom"
capi_x Member since:

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:

Unless you receive money from Google aka "Don't be evil". ;-)

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.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: dear Thom
by mrstep on Sun 2nd Sep 2012 21:24 in reply to "RE: dear Thom"
mrstep Member since:

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1