mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (07/28/89)
COURT ISSUES FURTHER RULING ON
APPLE'S 1985 AGREEMENT WITH MICROSOFT
CUPERTINO, California-July 25, 1989--Apple Computer, Inc. said
today that the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, California,
has ruled that a 1985 agreement between Apple and Microsoft, Inc.
gives Microsoft a license to use individual visual display
elements from its original Windows product, version 1.0, in
version 2.03. The court ruled, however, that two major visual
differences between Windows version 1.0 and version 2.03 -- the
visual displays associated with overlapping windows, and a change
in the appearance and manipulation of icons -- are
not licensed under that agreement.
The court previously ruled in March, 1989 that Windows 2.03
in its entirety is not licensed. Today's ruling confirms that,
and further establishes that important parts of 2.03 are
unlicensed. The court said it would now proceed to determine
whether Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard Corporation's use of
unlicensed displays, in combination with the licensed Windows 1.0
visual displays, infringes Apple's audiovisual copyrights. The ruling,
which addresses a license agreement between Apple and Microsoft,
has no effect on the validity of Apple's Macintosh copyrights.
"When Microsoft moved from tiled to overlapping windows in
version 2.03, it made a fundamental change that significantly
altered the overall appearance of its Windows product," said
Edward B. Stead, vice president and general counsel. "The result
is a product that appears more similar to the Macintosh and
one which we contend infringes Apple's copyrights. Under the
court's ruling, that change is unlicensed."
"With today's ruling on the contract issue behind us, we are
eager at last to move on to the essence of the case, which is the
issue of copyright infringement," said Stead. "We do not believe
the ruling should have a significant effect on Apple's ability to
show that Windows 2.03 and Hewlett-Packard's NewWave infringe
Apple's copyrights."
Apple brought suit against Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard on
March 17, 1988 for infringement of Apple's copyrighted audiovisual
works by two products: Microsoft's Windows 2.03 and Hewlett-
Packard's NewWave. The audiovisual appearance of Macintosh is
one of the elements that makes it unique and distinctive in the
marketplace, and in computer parlance, extremely "user friendly".
In May 1988, Microsoft requested that the case be bifurcated,
or divided into two parts. The first part was to determine the
scope of the 1985 license; the second part will address copyright
infringement. The two companies had entered into the 1985
agreement to resolve a dispute that had arisen at that time
concerning possible copyright infringement of Apple's
audiovisual works by Microsoft Windows version 1.0.
Judge William W Schwarzer's decision today completes review
of the contract issue. A subsequent phase of the case will address
the issue of copyright infringement.
---------
On a separate note...
In this week's ComputerWorld, a lawyer from HP is quoted as saying that this
is a major blow to Apple's case. He was very optimistic. However, I don't
see how this could be a good sign for HP or Microsoft. We shall see.
-Michael
--
Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)jcocon%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (James C O'Connor III, 2841) (07/28/89)
Anyone out there have MindWrite 2.1? I am thinking about getting it. Jim
wilson@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (James E. Wilson) (07/29/89)
In article <8459@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: >On a separate note... >In this week's ComputerWorld, a lawyer from HP is quoted as saying that this >is a major blow to Apple's case. He was very optimistic. However, I don't >see how this could be a good sign for HP or Microsoft. We shall see. I've seen about 10 opinions on the ruling so far. Only two have shown it in a positive light for Apple: 1) the Apple press release. 2) a stock broker specializing in Apple stocks. Everyone else, newspaper reporters, legal experts, etc, has used phrases like "stunning legal blow for Apple". A San Francisco Chronicle article about the ruling has been posted to gnu.misc.discuss, take a look at that for a more impartial commentary on the ruling. The text of the ruling will probably also be posted there, in case you are interested. Please, don't start up an Apple vs. GNU flame war again. Basically, in Apple's original suit, they listed 189 points of similarity between MS Windows 2.03 and the Macintosh, claiming that MS did not have the rights to use any of these features in Windows 2.03. Judge Schwartzer has ruled that Windows 2.03 is covered by the 1985 Apple-MS license agreement, and that only 10 items from the list of 189 are not covered by the license agreement. This will make the case far easier for HP/MS, since they can now concentrate on only these remaining 10 features. A ruling against MS on any of these 10 features will not necessarily kill Windows 2.03. It would probably only mean that MS would have to remove that feature before marketing Windows 2.03. Of these 10 remaining features, I have only seen two mentioned. The other eight are apparently so minor that is does not matter much who wins them. The important two contested features are: 1) Overlapping windows. (Practically a moot point since no one, with perhaps the exception of the Apple legal counsel, believes that Apple can win this one. Apple did not invent overlapping windows, period.) 2) The movement and placement of icons. (This is the biggie, which the rest of the case will probably focus on.) Disclaimer: These are solely the opinions of me and my Mac II, and neither of us have any formal legal training. Jim Wilson wilson@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU ...!ucbvax!ucbarpa!wilson
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (07/30/89)
In article <30257@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, wilson@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (James E. Wilson) writes... >I've seen about 10 opinions on the ruling so far. Only two have shown it in >a positive light for Apple: >1) the Apple press release. >2) a stock broker specializing in Apple stocks. >Everyone else, newspaper reporters, legal experts, etc, has used phrases like >"stunning legal blow for Apple". A San Francisco Chronicle article about the For what it's worth, the New York Times article that I read about it didn't imply that it was a "stunning legal blow for Apple". In fact, my impression was that the article/reporter felt that Apple had come out ahead. I'll keep my opinion to myself, but just thought I'd set the record straight. Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine
Greg@AppleLink.Apple.Com (Greggy) (08/02/89)
In article <30257@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> wilson@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (James E. Wilson) writes: > Apple did not invent overlapping windows, period.) As I understand it, who invented overlapping windows would only be an issue here if PATENT infringement was part of the case. Since the case is about COPYRIGHT infringement, inventor status is irrelevant. Ownership of the expression of the ideas (protected by copyright) is at issue, not ownership of the ideas (not protected by copyright). Period. BTW, this is a layman's opinion, and definately NOT meant as an expression of Apple's stand on the case. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Greg Marriott + AppleLink: Greg + + Just Some Guy + + + "My phone is always busy" + Internet: Greg@AppleLink.Apple.Com + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Apple Computer, Inc. + + 20525 Mariani Ave, MS-46z, Cupertino, CA 95014 + + (408)974-busy + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++