|
Web Matches |
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporatio.. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ... Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. ...
Apple, Inc. Apple Inc. - Wikipedia ... of Apple, manufacturer of computers, consumer electronics, ... v. Microsoft Corporation.[42] The lawsuit dragged on for years before being thrown out of court. ...
APPLE COMPUTER, INC. v. MICROSOFT CORP., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) APPLE COMPUTER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF ... APPLE COMPUTER, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION; ...
Everything about Apple Computer ... know more about "Apple Computer" ... multinational corporation with a focus ... property, in Apple Computer, Inc. ... Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation. Apple Inc. ...
Everything about Apple Inc. Microsoft, Volkswagen. See also: Location: Chicago. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation ... Microsoft Corporation, Apple Computer, Inc., Hewlett ...
Microsoft and Apple Wiki 3.2 Apple Computer, Inc. v Microsoft Corporation (1994) 3.3 Microsoft Helps Out Apple ... Apple Computer, Inc. v Microsoft Corporation (1994) In 1994 Apple ...
|
|
|
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
Search Articles
e.g. mp4
|
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation |
|
|
|
This article is about the "look and feel" copyright lawsuit between Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer, Inc.) and Microsoft Corporation. There have been other lawsuits between the two companies. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. (now Apple Inc.) sought to prevent Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. Some critics claimed that Apple was really attempting to gain all intellectual property rights over the desktop metaphor for computer interfaces, and perhaps all GUIs, on personal computers. Apple lost all claims in the lawsuit, except that the court ruled that the trash can icon and file folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's now-forgotten NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994, and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.Apple had previously agreed to license certain parts of its GUI to Microsoft for use in Windows 1.0. When Microsoft made changes in Windows 2.0, such as overlapping windows and other more Macintosh-like GUI features, Apple filed suit, and then added extra claims to the suit when Microsoft released Windows 3.0.Apple claimed the "look and feel" of the Macintosh operating system, taken as a whole, was protected by copyright, and that each individual element of the interface (such as the existence of windows on the screen, the fact that they are rectangular, are resizable, overlap, and have title bars) was not as important as all these elements taken together. After long arguments, the judge insisted on an analysis of specific GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringements. Apple came up with a list of 189 GUI elements; the judge decided that 179 of these elements had been licensed to Microsoft in the Windows 1.0 agreement, and most of the remaining 10 elements were not copyrightable - either they were unoriginal to Apple, or they were the only possible way of expressing a specific idea.In a twist midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple, claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invested in Apple and had invited the Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research lab; these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintosh GUI. Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, instead of Apple. The Xerox case was dismissed because the three year statute of boundaries had passed - Xerox had waited too long to file suit. Impact
Software developers and Macintosh users followed this case with great interest. It is common knowledge that Microsoft and Apple users do not see eye to eye on most subjects. So the discussion concerning this case had high partisan appeal. In General, MS users deemed Apple to act upon ulterior motives, accusing them of using the lawsuit to gain market share. Apple aficionados, on the other hand, held Microsoft in contempt for stealing Apple ideas and outlook as well as for ignoring the protection of what they perceived as Apple's intellectual property.The court, to the amazement of many, based most of its ruling on the original licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft for Windows 1.0. This made the case more of a contractual matter than one of of copyright law, much against Apple's intentions. This also meant that the court could avoid a far-reaching "look and feel copyright" precedent ruling. So, the copyright issue was never rightly resolved.The matter was settled out of court.In 1997, five years after the lawsuit was decided, all lingering infringement questions against Microsoft regarding the Lisa and Macintosh GUI as well as Apple's "QuickTime piracy" lawsuit against Microsoft were settled in direct negotiations. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer their default browser, to the detriment of Netscape. Microsoft agreed to continue developing their Office and other software for the Mac for the next 5 years. Microsoft also purchased $150 million of non-voting Apple stock, badly needed by the Apple company at that time. Both parties entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement. Now, Netscape has gone under, IE is no longer Apple's default browser, Apple's Safari and Firefox by Mozilla are the new contenders. Microsoft Office is still available for Apple but now only as an application to be purchased separately.In recent years Apple has resumed threats of litigation in this area. One target has been Stardock, whose CEO Brad Wardell once joked that Apple's lawyers had him on speed-dial. Apple was not pleased when skins and themes for WindowBlinds, IconPackager and DesktopX, looking similar to their Aqua GUI, were released in mid-2000, that is, over six months before the release of Mac OS X.
Related Ads
|
|
Resource: Part or all of the information provided in this section is brought to you via wikipedia and other similar sites. Please repsect their licenses and for more information visit the homepages of these sites. |