🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8459@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes:
>On a separate note...
>In this week's ComputerWorld, a lawyer from HP is quoted as saying that this
>is a major blow to Apple's case.  He was very optimistic.  However, I don't
>see how this could be a good sign for HP or Microsoft.  We shall see.

I've seen about 10 opinions on the ruling so far.  Only two have shown it in
a positive light for Apple:
1) the Apple press release.
2) a stock broker specializing in Apple stocks.
Everyone else, newspaper reporters, legal experts, etc, has used phrases like
"stunning legal blow for Apple".  A San Francisco Chronicle article about the
ruling has been posted to gnu.misc.discuss, take a look at that for a more
impartial commentary on the ruling.  The text of the ruling will probably
also be posted there, in case you are interested.  Please, don't start up an
Apple vs. GNU flame war again.

Basically, in Apple's original suit, they listed 189 points of similarity
between MS Windows 2.03 and the Macintosh, claiming that MS did not have the
rights to use any of these features in Windows 2.03.

Judge Schwartzer has ruled that Windows 2.03 is covered by the 1985
Apple-MS license agreement, and that only 10 items from the list of 189
are not covered by the license agreement.  This will make the case far easier
for HP/MS, since they can now concentrate on only these remaining 10 features.
A ruling against MS on any of these 10 features will not necessarily kill
Windows 2.03.  It would probably only mean that MS would have to remove that
feature before marketing Windows 2.03.

Of these 10 remaining features, I have only seen two mentioned.  The other
eight are apparently so minor that is does not matter much who wins them.
The important two contested features are:
1) Overlapping windows.  (Practically a moot point since no one, with perhaps
     the exception of the Apple legal counsel, believes that Apple can win
     this one.  Apple did not invent overlapping windows, period.)
2) The movement and placement of icons.  (This is the biggie, which the rest
     of the case will probably focus on.)

Disclaimer: These are solely the opinions of me and my Mac II, and neither of
us have any formal legal training.

Jim Wilson
wilson@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU
...!ucbvax!ucbarpa!wilson