Apple copying small developers

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:16:05 -0700, Adam C. Engst <acetidbits.com> wrote:
> I hadn't realized that Spotlight could take over from LaunchBar, but
> if so, it's once again depressing.

Loking more closely this is not the case. Launchbar is an adaptive
lancher that has some similarlities to Spotlight. Spotlight is a
static search engine that has some similarities to Launchbar. I
expect them to coëxist very nicely. I certainly don't see anything in
spotlight that would replace Launchbar, however similar they may
appear on the surface.

command-space-n-p will open network prefs as it always has and
spotlinght NP will find files and data with "np" in the name... not
Network Prefs, for one.

Also, Dashboard is, on second sight, not much like Konfab. It is much
more like a cross between the old DA's and Windows "live desktop"

1) Dashboard has its own "layer" where everything is so widget are
only there when you go to that layer. FOr many uses of konfab, this
will not overlap (clock, rss feeds, live data of any kind).
2) Dashbord widgets are basically HTML pages with a univefrsal (??)
widget wrapper.
3) Hopefully Dashboard won't suck mass amounts of processor

--
gkreme at gmail or kreme at kreme or syth at mac

Have Apple or others ever revealed the heuristics they use for
determining whether to copy or to license another developer's work?

[I'd be surprised if it wasn't a case-by-case basis. -Adam]

I seem to recall that a few OS versions ago, Apple licensed
WindowShade - and a few other technologies from other developers.
That was great. three cheers for apple.

With Watson and Konfabulator (possibly LaunchBar) the trend seems to
be not to license. What's the line or legal point at which a company
can make such a move?

Has Apple simply determined that the smaller developers don't have
the clout to sue?

mc

I strongly suggest that anyone interested in this issue, have a
listen to Arlo Rose's interview last night with Shawn King on Your
Mac Life.

<rtsp://qt.yourmaclife.com/yml/YML040630s.mov>

The press has made him appear to be outraged over this issue, when if
fact he is not. He came across in person as quite calm, reasonable,
and intelligent.

As usual, the press has found controversy where it doesn't really
exist, and the public has taken up the cry without really knowing all
the facts.

[He was pretty mad on Monday. ;-) But being a reasonable guy, I'm not surprised that he's calmed down. -Adam]

Regards,
--

Chuck Goolsbee V.P. Technical Operations
_________________________________________________________________
digital.forest Phone: +1-877-720-0483, x2001
where Internet solutions grow Int'l: +1-425-483-0483
19515 North Creek Parkway Fax: +1-425-482-6871
Suite 208 http://www.forest.net
Bothell, WA 98011 email: cgforest.net

At 10:43 on 30-6-04, Adam wrote:
> I think there's a difference between another entrant in an existing
> field, and what seems, at least to the outside, like a direct copy.
> Safari wasn't a copy of OmniWeb any more than it was a copy of
> every other Web browser ever.

I don't know if this is necessarily a fair point. Aside from the fact
that none (or few) of us have actually used Dashboard, from the
demonstrations, the concept is different. With Dashboard, a keystroke
overlays all of one's widgets. With Konfabulator (at least when I
last tried it three months ago), the widgets are always there.

[The latest release of Konfabulator introduced "Konspose," which shows all the widgets in a layer. -Adam]

This is actually the reason I decided not to use Konfabulator -- having
widgets always around just got in the way of my normal work. In any
case, I'm not trying to say one way is better than the other, but
just that Dashboard and Konfabulator might end up having very
different methods of interaction. If their only similarity is that
they both enable utilities in floating windows, I don't think there
is any basis to say that Apple has stolen the idea of floating
utilities (even if they are 'web enabled').

> And as far as Automator goes (I'm not sure what Pipeline is), it's
> simply not sufficiently clear where it fits to know if it will hurt
> the other macro utilities, but even if it does, it's a new approach
> joining an existing field with multiple entrants, so the
> Dashboard/Konfabulator criticism wouldn't apply.

This is an interesting argument, but I'm not sure what I think about
it. It essentially comes down to, "If there's only one piece of
software in a similar category Apple shouldn't compete with it; if
there are multiple, then it's okay for Apple to write their own
competitor." Why is a free email client okay -- that makes it more
difficult for many small developers (i.e. CTM Development,
Bare Bones)? Separately, why was it any more acceptable for Apple to
incorporate AppleScript into the OS (I think at the time Frontier was
the only system-wide scripting solution available?)? The definition
of when Apple is 'stealing' someone else's idea seems circumstantial.

I'm just not sure about this argument that Apple can't add features
simply because they are currently offered by only one other company's
product. I'm not saying that I am completely comfortable with the
Dashboard/Konfabulator issue, but a lot of the arguments seem
somewhat tenuous when looked at in a general context.

[I think the difference is that when Apple joins a field with multiple participants, there is differentiation between the products. Mail may be free and bundled, but there are lots of very different choices from other companies. When Apple targets a single product and produces something that seems nearly identical, it's harder to see it as increasing choice in favor of crushing a particular developer. Note that I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't add such features to the OS, just that doing so in the Watson/Konfabulator way seems problematic from a perceptual approach. How does it look to developers at WWDC to have Apple copying a small developer's product - does that encourage people to develop for the Mac or try their best to avoid being crushed by Apple? -Adam]

As a last point, do we know when Apple started working on Dashboard?
If they started work (or drafted the concept) before Konfabulator was
announced, is that okay? Or what if the person who came up with the
idea had never heard of Konfabulator (we can't assume that every
developer at Apple has heard of Konfabulator)? In these cases, should
Apple still be paying Mr Rose some compensation because they are
entering a single supplier market? I'm not saying yes or no, just
pointing out that this is not quite the black and white issue that
some would have us believe.

[My impression is that pretty much everyone is aware that Konfabulator came first, and Apple was fully aware of what they were doing. -Adam]

Just some of my thoughts on this interesting issue.

Cheers,
Jolin

At 10:43 AM -0700 6/30/04, Joshua Brauer wrote:
>own window. Enlightenment (http://www.enlightment.org/) has had
>floating non-square windows with widgets in them for longer than
>Konfabulator or OS X have been around. I had it on my desktop next
>to my System 8 machine for quite a while.

In my mind, Konfabulator is more than just floating non-square
windows. It also include the being able to create widgets without
programming, which is why I don't see it as a rip off of Desk
Accessories.

I think the negative reaction stemmed mostly from the initial
impression looking at the Dashboard screenshot, because the 2 are
very close visually. But as more information about Dashboard has
come out, it's become clear what the differences are, and John
Gruber's comments changed my mind about this.

>visually script actions) is a "QuicKeys Killer".... Nor did we hear
>Omni Group scream that Safari was an OmniWeb copy.... Or the Zoe
>programmers scream that the ability to search email archives is a
>Zoe killer....

The difference in those cases is that the "value-add" of those
products is at the application level, while in the case of
Dashboard/Konfabulator the key piece is the engine, which is closer
to the system level. To put it another way, there isn't one "right"
way to do a scripting language, browser, or search tool. A developer
with a new idea for a scripting environment can implement one using
the system-level scripting support, one with an idea for a new kind
of browser can use WebKit, etc.

This just highlights the danger of trying to sell a product that
really should be an integrated part of the OS.

--
Larry Rosenstein
lsralum.mit.edu

[I think there's a difference between another entrant in an existing field, and what seems, at least to the outside, like a direct copy. [...] Sherlock/Watson and Dashboard/Konfabulator seem pretty close.

John Gruber's in-depth comment definitely helps understand the Dashboard vs. Konfabulator case much better: judging from John's article, Dashboard is quite a bit more than just a simple copy of Konfabulator. Oh, and he has a _very_ interesting comment about Watson, too. Definitely worth the read:

<http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboard_vs_konfabulator>

On a slightly separate note it will be interesting to see how the convergence of technologies. My vote is that soon Safari and Mail will be integrated. There will be a single interface for mail and RSS/Atom.

Convergence can be a good thing, as long as usability is not affected. E.g., combining a PDA and a cell phone into a single device, so you don't have to haul as many gadgets around, is pretty useful. The Sony Ericsson P900 is an impressive example of how to do this right, IMHO.

It even works in some software applications: I still find the OpenDoc-like way of how RagTime integrates word processing, spreadsheets and charts into one environment far superior to Office's separate applications. The convergence between web browser and email client, however, has always struck me as odd and "forced," reminding me of Zadeh's hammer that makes everything look like a nail.

The processes and workflows involved when working with email, web pages, and RSS feeds, do share some common ground, but they differ in the details, i.e., where it really counts (I personally find that little things have a much bigger influence on whether I enjoy or hate working with an app than the big things...). By being able to use separate pieces of software for each "data source type," the developers can optimize the UI of their app for the respective data. Trying to squeeze it all into one app to arrive at some sort of an "iAccessTheInternet" application? Please, Steve, don't do it, OK?! ;)

Jochen.

m.c. wonders...

> Have Apple or others ever revealed the heuristics they use for
> determining whether to copy or to license another developer's work?

As Adam suggests, it's surely considered on a case-by-case basis.
Factors they'd consider are whether they're really doing the SAME
thing or just something marginally similar, whether they could take
advantage of existing code, and whether they run the risk of setting
a bad precedent.

There's been quite a bit of chatter about this here at WWDC, and
among the comments I've found sensible...

* They can't throw money at every developer with a vaguely similar
    product, or they'd be wide open to lawsuits from every third-party
    developer who ever releases anything.

* It's tough to make even a good-faith offer to a developer, because
    if the developer declines the offer, or tries pushing for more and
    is turned down, they've got a piece of paper from Apple saying "We
    think your gizmo is similar to something we're about to do, so we're
    going to offer you $X for it," and can sue for whatever they want.

* Konfabulator is not just similar to technologies being developed for
    Windows and previously extant in NeXT and other Unix OSes, but it's
    similar to the Desk Accessories concept that dates back to 1984! Why
    should Apple offer to pay for something THEY did 20 years ago?

* Dashboard uses a pretty completely different set of technologies, as
    someone else here has pointed out; you can do almost anything in
    Dashboard that you could do on a web page. Heck, *I* already created
    a Dashboard gadget!

* Apple knows they're pretty near Konfabulator's territory, and they're
    making obvious efforts NOT to use the "widget" terminology, instead
    using "gadget"... but they keep mixing 'em up.

* Apple would have done well to say "Hey, we're not doing the same thing,
    so we don't feel we owe you anything, but we'd like to make this
    good-faith gesture..." and hand over a couple of G5s and 30" Cinema
    Displays... but then there's the tacit admission that there's some
    similarity.

==========================================================================
  Mark H. Anbinder | mhatidbits.com
  Contributing Editor, TidBITS | http://www.tidbits.com/
==========================================================================

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 09:32:18 -0700, m.c. schraefel <mcthe-mind.com> wrote:
> Have Apple or others ever revealed the heuristics they use for
> determining whether to copy or to license another developer's work?
>
> [I'd be surprised if it wasn't a case-by-case basis. -Adam]
>

They license when they are using the code someone else wrote.
 
> I seem to recall that a few OS versions ago, Apple licensed
> WindowShade - and a few other technologies from other developers.
> That was great. three cheers for apple.

Agreed, but Windowshade was a unique utility that provided a unique
ability to the OS.

> With Watson

Watson was a copy of an Apple Demo of Sherlock long before Sherlock
was released. Who copied whom?

Konfabulator is not Dashboard and Launchbar is not Spotlight.
Assuming that apple "copied" Konfabulator or launchbar shows a
remarkable disregard for Apple, I think.

--
gkreme at gmail or kreme at kreme or syth at mac

> At 10:43 -0700 on 6/30/04, r2g indited:
> >My family relies on Watson for online dictionary/thesaurus for papers
> >and other writing. Dictionaries on CDs were hardly available for the
> >Mac even while on OS9, so by OSX we just got Watson. Can't imagine
> >using a browser for that.
>
> Why not? I've never quite understood the usefulness of something like
> Sherlock or Watson. I've tried to get used to using them, but I
> always end up sticking with a browser. In particular, all the same
> content is accessible through your browser, and in my case, at least,
> I always have at least one browser already running. Thus, looking
> something up involves just switching over to the browser and heading
> for the appropriate reference page via toolbar bookmark, rather than
> waiting for yet another program to take its sweet time launching.
> Also, I don't know about Watson, but Sherlock has an annoyance in
> that it wants to load the content area for whatever channel is
> selected at launch, and it's sometimes slow to do so. By contrast, my
> browser has a blank homepage set, so I can go straight to the content
> I actually want without a moment's delay.
>
> As it happens, my favorite site for general reference duties is
> iTools. It offers forms for quick and easy access to a wide variety
> of tools offered by other sites, much like what Sherlock and Watson
> do but in a browser and all on one page. Included are several
> dictionaries and thesauri. The default dictionary is Merriam-Webster,
> which includes audio pronunciations of all words, a nice touch.
>
>

I don't know about Sherlock, I haven't been using it, but I don't find
Watson problematic at launching -- I don't find it any slower than
searching for a book mark in an open browser, plus if I need to be
using a dictionary I just leave it running.
What I like about its reference section is the pull down menu for the
various dictionaries/thesaurus. I find it more convenient than the
iTools method to be able to swap quickly between a thesaurus and a
dictionary, for instance.

At 09:32 -0700 UTC, on 2004/07/02, Adam wrote:

[...]

> How does it look to developers at WWDC to have Apple copying a small
> developer's product - does that encourage people to develop for the Mac or
> try their best to avoid being crushed by Apple?

I think that exactly nails it. It's not that important whether or not Apple
stole Konfabulator. What _is_ important is whether or not Mac developers feel
that it's worth investing in Mac software. Even if Apple did nothing wrong
legally, or even morally, if too many developers *feel* that the risk of
Apple walking away with their idea is too big, their creativity will be lost
on us, Mac users. We'll all lose.

Not that I'm saying this is the situation right now - just that it is the
point ;)

--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>

On 7/2/04 at 9:32 AM, mcthe-mind.com (m.c. schraefel) wrote:

>I seem to recall that a few OS versions ago, Apple licensed
>WindowShade - and a few other technologies from other developers.
>That was great. three cheers for apple.

>With Watson and Konfabulator (possibly LaunchBar) the trend seems
>to be not to license.

Let's see.

With Watson, Apple offered the developer a job which was refused.

With Konfabulator, Dashboard apparently has the same functionality but is based on totally different technology. So, there is no reason for Apple to license Konfabulator.

With LaunchBar, there is some overlap in functionality between it and Spotlight. Again, Spotlight is based on different technology which will most likely be used to improved LaunchBar. So, again, there is no reason for Apple to license LaunchBar.

In short, these examples provide no evidence of Apple mistreating small developers.

--On Friday, July 2, 2004 9:32 AM -0700 Jolin M Warren
<JolinWarrenOakandApple.org> wrote:

> This is actually the reason I decided not to use Konfabulator -- having
> widgets always around just got in the way of my normal work.

This annoyed me with the first version of Konfabulator, but they added a
feature that allows you to force widgets to be on the "desktop". These
widgets don't get in the way (put are frequently covered up....) They also
don't respond to Expose (so you don't get a bunch of little widget windows
taking up space in the all window display. In fact I use the Expose show
Desktop feature to check the widgets I've got stuck to the desktop. F11 -
I see the desktop, check the weather or my battery connection, F11 again
and I'm back to work.

Kevin

At 2:01 am -0700 3/7/04, Mark Anbinder wrote:

* Apple knows they're pretty near Konfabulator's territory, and they're making obvious efforts NOT to use the "widget" terminology, instead using "gadget"... but they keep mixing 'em up.

"Widgets" predate Konfabulator's territory by *years* - it is a term which is used in X Windows (otherwise known as X11).

From <http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/Topics/113.htm>

Widgets layer on top of Xlib and provide X Windows with an object-oriented programming model. A widget is an X window capable of handling most of its own protocol interaction. The most popular widget sets are Athena Widgets (aw) and Motif.

So, if Apple choose to use the term widgets, there is plenty of prior art.

Cheers,

Joel

--

Joel Smith Dales IT Ltd 22 Springfield Way Pateley Bridge Tel: +44 1423 712591 Mobile: +44 7768 803758 N.Yorks HG3 5PA Fax: +44 870 1617192

The whole Dashboard/Konfabulator problem is an issue of perception. Legally,
Apple did nothing wrong. They may not have even done anything ethically
questionable. But because of the way Dashboard was presented when it was
announced, they created the *perception* that they had stolen the idea from
Konfabulator. That perception is why people are concerned--the reasoning
being that if Apple cared about supporting the small developers, they would
actively avoid creating the perception that they are stealing ideas.

[Very well put - this is the crux of the issue. -Adam]

Mark D. McKean
qpandaquantumpanda.com

--On Tuesday, July 6, 2004 11:50 AM -0700 "Mark D. McKean"
<qpandaquantumpanda.com> wrote:

> The whole Dashboard/Konfabulator problem is an issue of perception.
> Legally, Apple did nothing wrong. They may not have even done anything
> ethically questionable. But because of the way Dashboard was presented
> when it was announced, they created the *perception* that they had stolen
> the idea from Konfabulator. That perception is why people are
> concerned--the reasoning being that if Apple cared about supporting the
> small developers, they would actively avoid creating the perception that
> they are stealing ideas.
>
> [Very well put - this is the crux of the issue. -Adam]

I do think there are 2 other issues surrounding this particular issue.

a) Apple hung posters all over the place commenting about how Microsoft
tends to copy Mac features. Arlo Rose & Perry Clarke are right in using
the same teasing on the Konfabulator home page.

<http://www.macminute.com/2004/06/27/tigerbanners>
<http://www.konfabulator.com/>

b) Apple's Dashboard certainly looks like Konfabulator, although I can't
comment on the feel of it. Apple has been running around patenting various
look and feel issues. It appears to be slightly hypocritical to want to
protect your own look and feel while at the same time making your apps look
like others.

<http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20040055446&OS=20040055446&RS=20040055446>

I find this particular patent, awarded May 4th, to be a bit egregious
against Arlo Rose, who brought out Kaleidoscope which allowed users to
switch between different themes:
<http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=22&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=apple.ASNM.&OS=AN/apple&RS=AN/apple>

>From the abstract: "Systems and methods for providing a user with increased
flexibility and control over the appearance and behavior of objects on a
user interface. Sets of objects can be grouped into themes to provide a
user with a distinct overall impression of the interface. These themes can
be switched dynamically by switching pointers to drawing procedures or
switching data being supplied to these procedures."

Kevin

On 7/6/04 at 11:50 AM, qpandaquantumpanda.com (Mark D. McKean)
wrote:

>The whole Dashboard/Konfabulator problem is an issue of perception.
>Legally, Apple did nothing wrong. They may not have even done
>anything ethically questionable. But because of the way Dashboard
>was presented when it was announced, they created the *perception*
>that they had stolen the idea from Konfabulator. That perception is
>why people are concerned--the reasoning being that if Apple cared
>about supporting the small developers, they would actively avoid
>creating the perception that they are stealing ideas.

>[Very well put - this is the crux of the issue. -Adam]

I can see the point here and understand why perceptions can be as important as technical or legal issues if not more important. But this raises an obvious question, i.e., how should Apple present something like Dashboard to avoid the perception of stealing ideas?

Part of the problem is the perception Apple ripped off Konfabulator with Dashboard, is that perception results from a very superficial view of both Konfabulator and Dashboard. That is both have the same functionality and Konfabulator obviously precedes Dashboard. How much effort should Apple spend trying to avoid this perception when just a little effort getting the details dispels the perception? That is should Apple really be concerned about those seem unwilling to really do more than a superficial examination of the issues?

It in large part of the Konfabulator/Dashboard debate is due to a few "experts" offering opinions without doing their homework and some people reading those opinions uncritically. I suspect no matter how Apple presented Dashboard there would be one or more "experts" who would only offer a superficial report. And it would only take one or two since there are many others who seem to greatly enjoy spreading the type of story where the small guy seems to be taken advantage by the big guy without doing anything to verify the validity of the story.

[To be fair, there wasn't much information available initially, so people were going on what they could see from the keynote, and second-hand reports from those at the keynote. It wasn't until later in the week that all the details started to come out and people were able to evaluate better the entire situation. -Adam]

At 7:44 PM -0700 2004/07/07, Kevin van Haaren wrote:

>I find this particular patent, awarded May 4th, to be a bit
>egregious against Arlo Rose, who brought out Kaleidoscope which
>allowed users to switch between different themes:
><http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=22&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=apple.ASNM.&OS=AN/apple&RS=AN/apple>
>
>From the abstract: "Systems and methods for providing a user with increased
>flexibility and control over the appearance and behavior of objects
>on a user interface. Sets of objects can be grouped into themes to
>provide a user with a distinct overall impression of the interface.
>These themes can be switched dynamically by switching pointers to
>drawing procedures or switching data being supplied to these
>procedures."

        I remember the history a bit differently. As I recall, when
Apple developed the Platinum (now Classic) Appearance, it was to be
one of several, and they were showing off different Themes in sales
road shows. Different fonts, colors, etc. -- some quite out there.

        The Appearance Manager Apple shipped in Mac OS 8, but Apple
only provided one theme (Platinum), with no support for alternatives.
So at that point (8.0) they had the technology described in the
patent, even if they wouldn't let users take advantage of it.
Kaleidoscope (which I used for years) let Mac users play with
Themes/Apperances/Schemes even though Apple didn't support such
fiddling. I don't recall Arlo's connection to Apple and the
Appearance Manager team, but he had one.

http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/kaleidoscope/schemetotheme/
http://www.atpm.com/6.08/gui-junkie.shtml
http://www.macintouch.com/m85_themes.html

                                                Chris
--
Chris Pepper: <http://www.reppep.com/~pepper/>
Rockefeller University: <http://www.rockefeller.edu/>

On 8/7/2004 2:44 PM, "Kevin van Haaren" <kevinvanhaaren.net> spake thus:

> I find this particular patent, awarded May 4th, to be a bit egregious
> against Arlo Rose, who brought out Kaleidoscope which allowed users to
> switch between different themes:

Hey, never mind Kaleidoscope, do you remember Church Windows? I'm pretty
sure it pre-dated Kaleidoscope, and even Greg's Buttons could be considered
to be a primitive form of "theming". And you've been able to do themes on
Windows for much longer than Kaleidoscope's been around. Even the "switching
pointers" argument doesn't hold water, as I'm pretty sure that's how
Kaleidoscope and it's predecessors worked.

Overall this looks like a prime example of just how bad a joke the patent
system has become.

--
=Nigel Stanger, Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND.
mailto:nstangerinfoscience.otago.ac.nz

> [To be fair, there wasn't much information available initially, so
> people were going on what they could see from the keynote, and
> second-hand reports from those at the keynote. It wasn't until later
> in the week that all the details started to come out and people were
> able to evaluate better the entire situation. -Adam]

Yet, Konfab's website still shows the confusion.

I can't believe people are still debating this.

I was one of the first people to post the Konfab vs Dashboard link to
this list, and I guess not too many people read it.

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:44:48 -0700, Kevin van Haaren <kevinvanhaaren.net> wrote:
> I find this particular patent, awarded May 4th, to be a bit egregious
> against Arlo Rose, who brought out Kaleidoscope which allowed users to
> switch between different themes:
> <http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=22&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=apple.ASNM.&OS=AN/apple&RS=AN/apple>
>
> >From the abstract: "Systems and methods for providing a user with increased
> flexibility and control over the appearance and behavior of objects on a
> user interface. Sets of objects can be grouped into themes to provide a
> user with a distinct overall impression of the interface. These themes can
> be switched dynamically by switching pointers to drawing procedures or
> switching data being supplied to these procedures."

For the record, Apple developed themes long before Kaleidoscope came
out. In fact, they were supposed to be part of System 7.7 (renamed to
8.0) but Apple pulled them. IIRC, they were pulled rather late in the
development, so that it was actually possible to run the themes under
OS 8 if you managed to find them, although my memory on OS 7.7/8.0 is
rather faded. That was not the first time they were attempted,
either. Kaleidoscope was not original. The patent you cite dates all
the way back to a 1994 application, and has references dating back to
1985. And Apple has no choice but to try to patent everything they
can, the US Patent Office has gone completely insane and is awarding
patents with reckless abandon. For example, one recent patent appears
to patent mail filter programs like procmail. It is the stupidity and
laziness of the US Patent Office that s to blame here, not the
companies trying to keep from getting their software patented out from
under them.

(This is much the same situation, by the way, that happened with
Watson/Sherlock. Apple demoed Sherlock technology and interface quite
early. Watson came out after that demo, but then it looked like
Sherlock was copying Watson by the time Sherlock finally came out).

--
gkreme at gmail or kreme at kreme or syth at mac