🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr16.224646.6617@algor2.algorists.com> jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) writes:

|   The judge apparently has come down clearly for `analytic dissection'
|   and against the `gestalt' or "look and feel" approach.  With regard to
|   Apple's refusal to engage in the `analytic dissection' of its claim,
|   the judge said "The court believes this is a fundamental
|   misconception", and that it may place Apple in "procedural default".
|
|   Ronald Laurie of Weil, Gotshal and Manges in Menlo Park CA is quoted
|   as follows: "It seems to be the end of look and feel."  Unless this
|   report is highly misleading in its selection of the judge's remarks,
|   it is hard to see what other conclusion can be drawn.
---
Of course, it also leaves an opening for a higher court to say "No,
Judge Walker, the misconception is yours."  I think it's still early
days for saying that it's the end of anything.  I also don't understand
exactly what was meant by "analytical dissection" -- clearly there were
a whole bunch of detailed points of similarity at issue, since 20-some
of those are still open and a large number were tossed out a year or
more ago.  So, in what sense was Apple failing to point at specific
items?

Does anybody know the details of the Webster's dictionary and Bette
Midler cases -- were they based on overall look and feel or on specific,
quantifiable points?
--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
uucp:	uunet!uiucuxc!udc!preece,	 arpa:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550