🚀 go-pugleaf

>>It will be interesting to see what comes out of the second phase of the
>>hearings.  Is Microsoft Windows too close to the Macintosh user interface?

>There's an important element that I think you may be missing here. I'm no
>lawyer, but I think that before the court can rule that MS infringed on Apple's
>copyright, they have to rule whether or not Apple's copyright is valid in
>the first place.

From what I've read (and I'm no expert on the case, that's for sure), all
the initial ruling stated was that the new release of Windows wasn't covered
by the agreement between Apple and Microsoft. 

If the judge had ruled in favor of Microsoft here, there would have been no
case, since Windows would have then been licensed. Since this ruling went
against Microsoft, the features in Windows that weren't part of the earlier
version of Windows aren't covered by any agreement between the two companies.

That's all the ruling says. It can be considered a ruling against Microsoft,
because if the ruling had gone the other way, the case would (effectively)
be over. But it doesn't really *say* anything -- it doesn't say that Apple
holds the copyrights, that the copyrights are valid, or that Microsoft has
violated those copyrights. From what I can tell, essentially nothing has
been decided except that the trial needs to move into the next phase.

(special disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not speaking for Apple, and I
don't know what I'm talking about (which goes without saying, but I'll say
it anyway...))


Chuq Von Rospach       -*-      Editor,OtherRealms      -*-      Member SFWA
chuq@apple.com  -*-  CI$: 73317,635  -*-  Delphi: CHUQ  -*-  Applelink: CHUQ
      [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.]

USENET: N. A self-replicating phage engineered by the phone company to cause
computers to spend large amounts of their owners budget on modem charges.