🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <kh8slqINNf10@agate.berkeley.edu> adam@soda.berkeley.edu (Adam J Richter) writes:
| In article <3NOV199113201381@minnie.me.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
| >The Apple vs. Microsoft/HP lawsuit is not a test case on the principle 
| >of validity of UI copyright, and no amount of posturing will make it so.
| 
| 	To the best of my knowledge Microsoft and HP haven't used
| the "UI copyright" keyword in defending themselves.  However, they
| are arguing that copyright law does not cover the types of claims
| that Apple is making.  It would be almost impossible for a judge to
| rule in favor of this argument without contradicting most, if not all,
| of the UI copyright doctrine.

Dear Sir, let me quote from the summary of proceedings in the Apple v.
Microsoft & HP suit, published in the Wednesday, May 20, 1991, Daily
Appellate Report of the Los Angeles Daily Journal.

The relevant quote comes from page 3:

	"Implicit in Judge Schwarzer's approach to the case is a
rejection of Apple's fundamental contention that the 'total concept
and feel' of the Macintosh graphic user interface is protectible."

If you (or anyone else would like to have an ASCII copy of the entire
summary of proceedings, I'll email you a copy.  Just send a request to
huntley@copper.ucs.indiana.edu

So, from reading the summary of proceedings, it seems as though the
Judge has already dismissed the 'look and feel' junk.  I'm not a legal
expert, but I learning as much as I can about this area of the law.

 
| >The legal dispute concerns the terms of an agreement that MS signed 
| >with Apple to license parts of their user interface.
| 
| 	You are dead wrong.  That is only one of the many arguments
| raised by one of the defendants (Microsoft).  What do you think
| Apple's cause of action is again Hewlett-Packard?

For the sake of information, the reason that HP is a defendant in the
suit is that Microsoft licensed some of the stuff which they claim to
have validly licensed from Apple to HP.  So Apple must sue HP, because
HP is claiming that they have a valid license to use some of Apple's
graphics.

You should read the summary of proceedings, because it explains all
this stuff.  In summary, the Microsoft/HP defense is pretty hoakey.
Microsoft claims that because Apple licensed them to use the Mac
GUI in Microsoft's Mac applications (Word, Multiplan, Excel, etc.),
that by extrapolation, Microsoft should be able to copy Apple's
interface in their own OS.  Apple's interpretation is that they got a
license to use the Mac GUI in those programs, but that Microsoft
didn't get a license to steal the whole GUI just because they used it!
The Judge agrees with Apple on this issue.


| >Indeed, if one considers the REAL issue,
| >their is little difference between what the companies are willing to 
| >do to protect market share. 
| 
| 	No.  There really is a fundamental difference between the
| Apple/Lotus camp and most other companies.  Apple and Lotus are
| attempting to manipulate the legal system to set new monopolistic
| precedents.  Most other major software companies aren't trying to
| establish new precedents or even using Lotus's precedent to sue
| anyone.  It is perfectly reasonable and proper for the LPF to identify
| the worst offenders and do what they can to avoid funding them.

Read the summary, and you will see that Apple, Microsoft and HP are
all making some unreasonable claims.  They *all* seem to have aggressive
legal departments.

--
;;  *****************************************************
;;  *  Haydn Huntley    huntley@copper.ucs.indiana.edu  *
;;  *                                                   *
;;  *   Member of the League for Programming Freedom.   *
;;  *   For more info, write to league@prep.ai.mit.edu  *
;;  *****************************************************