Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Aug 2012 17:43 UTC
Legal We all know about Apple's look-and-feel lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows 2.0, but this wasn't the only look-and-feel lawsuit Apple filed during those years. Digital Research, Inc., the company behind GEM, also found itself on the pointy end of Apple's needle. Unlike the lawsuit against Microsoft, though, Apple managed to 'win' the one against DRI.
Permalink for comment 533618
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: dear Thom
by mrstep on Sun 2nd Sep 2012 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE: dear Thom"
Member since:

I loved my Atari ST (hey, I could afford it, unlike a Mac!), but there's little doubt that it was largely a knock-off of the Mac interface. AmigaOS was actually very different, which just may have accounted for why they weren't targeted by Apple. True multitasking, different look, odd things like splitting the screen into vertical slices with different resolutions, etc. - not really a Mac.

I liked GEM, and certainly the 'update' that split the browser into 2 fixed windows and gimped other parts pretty much insured that its days (PC) were numbered. But - especially considering that the only thing that saved Microsoft was the fine print of the licensing agreements they had - I'm not sure that Apple was wrong in trying to defend their IP. Seems like legally they had a leg to stand on (right or wrong!), and as a company that pretty much defines some of the actions they took.

Anyways, the anti-Apple slant is certainly always implied if not always stated. Indignant protests over verdicts against companies that are blatantly ripping off IP (functionally and/or window dressing and certainly look of devices) are amusing, if not really on target. I was happy to see a jury agreed that flagrant and willful copying of protected designs isn't a legitimate business approach.

Reply Parent Score: 1