Xref: utzoo misc.legal:4347 comp.sys.ibm.pc:13713 comp.sys.mac:14427 comp.sys.apple:4908 comp.sys.atari.st:8589 comp.sys.hp:596 comp.sys.amiga:16680
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!fluke!kurt
From: kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.hp,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Apple Challenges HP New Wave, MS-Windows, Potentially OS/2 PM
Message-ID: <3221@fluke.COM>
Date: 25 Mar 88 17:26:57 GMT
References: <5480@well.UUCP> <5492@well.UUCP> <1457@ur-tut.UUCP> <11830@sri-spam.istc.sri.com> <27668@linus.UUCP>
Sender: news@tc.fluke.COM
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 16

Apple is not challenging MS's use of mousies and windows, but of the use of
windows with a specifically drawn bar on the top, a specifically drawn close
gadget on the upper left, and all those specifically rendered images of
specific buttons and controls all around the border.  It is saying that MS's
copy is so close as to confuse a legal mind over whose product it is.  It is
my opinion that Apple has a legitimate and moral right to protect their
commercial art (a contradiction?) just like any logo or trademark.  If MS
wants windows, dialog boxes, file icons, etc., that may be ok, but they must
"look and feel" different from the ones Apple uses so that you will be able
to tell the products apart.  MS might even be able to get away with putting
them in the same place on the screen if they were drawn differently. making
an argument that the placement on the screen was dictated by function, not
by art.  (There is even some evidence in the human factors literature for
this).  DRI redrew their window stuff and escaped (with an undisclosed
settlement).  Commodore redrew their window stuff in an effort to preempt a
lawsuit by Apple for the same reason.