Xref: utzoo misc.legal:4408 comp.sys.ibm.pc:13873 comp.sys.mac:14573 comp.sys.apple:4998 comp.sys.hp:634
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!necntc!linus!mbunix!jcmorris
From: jcmorris@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Joseph C. Morris)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: Apple challenges MS-Windows, et.al.
Message-ID: <28014@linus.UUCP>
Date: 29 Mar 88 18:20:30 GMT
References: <2543@charon.unm.edu>
Sender: news@linus.UUCP
Reply-To: jcmorris@mbunix (Morris)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA.
Lines: 28
Keywords: Apple v. Microsoft Windows

In article <2543@charon.unm.edu> cs2531bn@unmc.UUCP (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
[speaking about the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit]
>Far too late for that already.  The courts have already decided that the "look
>and feel" of a user interface CAN be copyrighted.  Remember the lawsuit that
>Broderbund won over one of the Print Shop clones?

Not quite.  There was a settlement (singular, in several senses of the
word) supporting plaintiff's position.  I don't believe that there
has been any action on that or any other "look-and-feel" cases above the
district courts, so there is no major precedent established.  One point 
made during the GEM and Crosstalk litigation was that the defendants didn't
have the resources to wage a protracted legal guerrilla war and so
didn't take the case as far as they could have otherwise.  That's clearly
not the case here.

>                                                       Microsoft implicitly
>agreed that Apple had claim to "very Maclike" interfaces when they licensed
>the technology from Apple.

Maybeso, maybeno.  IBM routinely buys licenses from vendors who claim ownership
of some technology that IBM wants to use, even if many people feel that there
is a good chance of a successful challenge to the ownership of the technology.
It's a business case: if it's cheaper to get a license than to contest the 
issue in court, buy the license.  An example of this is the license IBM bought
for the Token-Ring design.  Apple (or anyone) can _claim_ the ownership of
the windows-and-icon concept; the question is whether that claim is enforcable.

Joe Morris