Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Aug 2012 23:54 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 532509
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.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-10-05
That's completely wrong.
The court did not rule that Microsoft did not copy Mac's "look and feel". It did not rule on that question at all. The court rejected Apple's argument that UI is copyrightable as a whole, and instead dissected it into elements. For every element they found that it's either covered by Windows 1.0 license, unoriginal to Apple, or is the only way to express the idea, so isn't protected by copyright. The court did not rule if "look and feel" can be protected at all, but noted that "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor". This is quite similar to the recent Oracle v. Google ruling, only weaker because it relies on the license.
So the big difference with Apple v. Samsung is that Apple was able to patent its "look and feel", something it didn't and couldn't do in the 80s. Patents give much broader protection and don't have "the only way to express the idea" restriction.