Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Aug 2012 23:54 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 532308
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not sure where you read that. Apple quite famously lost that case, though the ruling relied in part on Microsoft having a contract.
I agree it's upsetting to see the same company in the same court bringing almost the same claims and seeing the law changing enough to let them win.
Not sure where you read that.
It was my recollection at the time. (I'm an old bastard - I was using computers even back then :p )
I agree it's upsetting to see the same company in the same court bringing almost the same claims and seeing the law changing enough to let them win.
The ironic thing is, I can see more merit in Apple being granted a patent for their GUI back then, than I can for most of the things they patent now.
But as has been said already, Apple don't want to see history repeat.
Not sure where you read that. Apple quite famously lost that case, though the ruling relied in part on Microsoft having a contract.
I agree it's upsetting to see the same company in the same court bringing almost the same claims and seeing the law changing enough to let them win.
I agree it's upsetting to see the same company in the same court bringing almost the same claims and seeing the law changing enough to let them win.
The law didn't change that much.
First, as you said, Microsoft had a deal with Apple by which they licensed Apple's GUI constructs (menus and icons), but didn't license Apple's "look and feel", which is what Apple sued about. And lost because Windows, despite having icons, windows, and menus (all of which Microsoft had a license for), didn't have the Mac "look and feel", nor did Microsoft try to emulate the Mac "look and feel".
Samsung, on the other hand, had no license deal with Apple, and they willfully and deliberately copied Apple's look and feel, and practically pretended to be a rebranded iPhone. Deliberately. "Let's make a device that looks as close to the iPhone as possible (maybe even close enough to fool a few low-information consumers!), and we'll reel in the dough!" Microsoft never tried to make Windows a carbon copy of the Mac. Samsung did intentionally try to make a near-carbon copy of the iPhone. They lost, and rightfully so.
The technology patents are a different matter. The rulings there don't bode well for Android.
Last thing I'll say is that this trial revealed that Apple and Micrsoft have a long standing cross-licensing agreement where they cross-license all of each other's tech, as long as neither tries to clone the other's products. That kind of deal sounds like the ideal situation to me, good for Apple, Microsoft, and consumers. Google and Samsung are too immature to reach such deals. Particularly Google. Being relatively young, they are still brash and think that the rules don't apply to them.





Member since:
2007-03-26
Hmm weird. I'm sure I remember reading that Apple had won at the time. In any case it was still Xerox's innovation to begin with so Apple's claim to it is tenuous at best.
It's funny how things have since done a U-turn now though - GUI designs were dismissed back then, where as now even more tediously obvious ideas like rounded corners are upheld. Like sharp corners on a device that you're going to poke next to your head and stuff down the tight pockets of your jeans are a great idea....
Edited 2012-08-25 20:14 UTC