Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 9th Feb 2013 18:54 UTC
Permalink for comment 552059
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-05-19
Microsoft had a license to use the Apple user interface. Apple argued that the license only applied to Windows 1.0, and not to any subsequent release of Windows!?
Yeah, it was a totally bizarre argument. Apple lost -- as they should.
Digital Research did not have a license to use the Apple user interface. This was before the look-and-feel issue was completely settled, and they didn't have a fallback defense.
History is repeating itself in the phone world. Microsoft has a patent cross-licensing agreement with Apple. Most of the other players don't.
Edited 2013-02-10 17:39 UTC