home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Toolkit for DOOM
/
DOOMTOOL.ISO
/
news
/
0400
/
0439
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-07-30
|
3KB
|
60 lines
Newsgroups: alt.games.doom
Path: cdrom.com!barrnet.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!chorizo!djwalton
From: djwalton@chorizo.engr.ucdavis.edu (David J Walton)
Subject: Re: Oh have you heard?
Message-ID: <djwalton.775608545@chorizo>
Sender: usenet@ucdavis.edu (News Guru)
Organization: University of California, Davis
References: <12a.16952.1898@compudata.com> <djwalton.775516906@chorizo> <paulhtcCtqsnH.Es6@netcom.com> <djwalton.775572771@chorizo> <paulhtcCtrnAv.L3o@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 1994 22:49:05 GMT
Lines: 48
paulhtc@netcom.com (Paul Hitchcock) writes:
>: I hadn't been aware of the Zilog thing. Still, I find it easier to believe
>: that Zilog could try for "Z" (as applied to CPUs - note the narrow scope)
>The problem is that the scope wasn't that narrow-- Zilog was objecting to
>any non-Zilog software/hardware product that prominently featured the
>letter "Z", including a BASIC interpreter called Z-BASIC.
Ok, but isn't Z-BASIC a BASIC for the Z-80? So they are using the Z to
refer to the CPU. I know that's stretching, but I tend to feel it's
stretching less than this Apple joke.
>Did you happen to follow the legal interchanges between Apple and
>Microsoft regarding "look and feel"? Why do you think that Windows does
>*not* have a drag-and-drop file deletion icon of *any* shape? In a
>similar vein, there was the lengthy legal battle between Apple and
>Digital Research regarding the GEM operating environment, in which Atari
>was named as a co-defendant...
This is all true, but it all applies to gui's. The barrels in Doom are
just objects to be destroyed, they aren't a gui feature. So there really
isn't a connection. Now, if id had an inventory window for Doom and you
could drag items you were carrying to a trash can to throw them away,
that'd be a whole 'nother story...
>The point is that Apple has a well-documented history of legal challenges
>to anyone who *remotely* infringes upon what Apple regards as its own
>turf-- that's why many people thought the original article seemed plausible.
It's own turf being gui's not games.
>There doesn't have to be a "plausible connection" in any sort of absolute
>sense for a lawsuit to succeed, or even commence. All you have to do
>is convince 12 nitwits chosen for their gullibility that such a
>connection "might" exist-- the burden of proof and rules of evidence in
>civil cases is completely different than it is in criminal cases.
Point taken. And we have proven that there are at least 12 nitwits out
there, haven't we? :)
Dave
--
==========================================================================
David Walton walton@cs.ucdavis.edu djwalton@engr.ucdavis.edu
==========================================================================