Talk:Berkeley Systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


"fooled the macintosh system into thinking the screen was bigger than it actually was"

Is this language unclear to anyone else?

Yes. I'd change it but I don't understand what it means. --Optichan 14:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC) commentary[edit]

Doesn't the additional commentary about and it's effects on the 527 system seem unnecessary for an article about a software company?

I agree. That information is relevant to and 2 software designers that went there, not to Berkeley Systems. It also comes across as promotional rather than informational. Moosephat 17:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The "2 software designers that went there" were the two founders of MoveOn, and in the interest of full disclosure, MoveOn's fans should know that its founders used to sue over some of the same tactics (satire, parody, etc) that MoveOn uses today. I rolled back the revision. If you don't like it, find a way to reword it, put it in the MoveOn article, but don't just chop stuff. Mscudder 09:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The wording that it has now is not NPOV. In particular, placing either "fittingly" or "ironically" at the beginning of the 527 section is completely POV. Furthermore, stating that these two designers went to found MoveOn is fine, but trying to make a judgement ("fans should know") about their actions is, by definition, NPOV. I've removed the NPOV section again.
I agree with Mscudder even further but with some corrections. The people who founded MoveOn Wes Boyd and Joan Blades) were not "software designers" at Berkeley Systems; they were the founders and owners of Berkeley Systems. Of the two, only Wes was a programmer.

Legal trouble[edit]

This is verbose, wordy, legalese:

During the early 90s Berkeley Systems filed a lawsuit against Delrina software because Delrina started selling a competing screen saver product containing Berkeley Systems' trademarked artwork (Flying Toasters).
In the resulting court case, the judge ruled that Delrina's product not merely commented on Berkeley's, but competed with it for the same customers.[1]. Delrina settled with Berkeley Systems, removed Berkeley Systems' trademarked images from their product and paid Berkeley Systems monetary damages. Not long after Delrina settled the lawsuit; the attorneys representing Jefferson Airplane in turn sued Berkeley Systems for copyright infringement claiming Berkeley Systems copied their (Jefferson Airplane's) trademark on the flying toaster from their 1973 album Thirty Seconds Over Winterland. Berkeley Systems claimed the flying toasters came from the brain of Jack Eastman (VP of engineering). A judge later found Jefferson Airplane's lawsuit to be without merit, as the group had failed to trademark the album's cover art.

I am replacing it with the text from Flying Toasters, if that is okay with everyone:

The toasters were the subject of two lawsuits, the first in 1993, Berkeley Systems vs Delrina Corporation, over a module of Delrina's Opus 'N Bill screensaver in which Opus the penguin shoots down the toasters. Delrina later changed the wings of the toasters to propellers in order to avoid infringing the trademark. The second case was brought in 1994 by 1960s rock group Jefferson Airplane who claimed that the toasters were a copy of the winged toasters featured on the cover of their 1973 album Thirty Seconds Over Winterland. The case was dismissed because the cover art had not been registered as a trademark by the group prior to Berkeley Systems' release of the screensaver.[2]

•Λmniarix• (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


On 25 October 2010 user Addionne tagged the article for lack of notability. Gimme a friggin' break! He must have been born yesterday. If he had bothered to read the After Dark (software) article, he would realise the significance of After Dark in the world of software and how it and Berkeley Systems influenced the design of subsequent operating systems, including Windows 95 from Microsoft. Accordingly, I've removed the tag. The article might be improved with references, but to consider removing it entirely for "lack of notability" is utterly ridiculous.—QuicksilverT @ 16:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Berkeley Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)