gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (07/30/89)
I got the judge's opinion from last week in the case, and also spent a
few hours browsing the official files in the court clerk's office.
(I'll type in the 17 page opinion and post it when I'm at a better
keyboard.) In summary, Judge Schwarzer decided that Apple can't sue
Microsoft for copyright infringement on 98% of Windows 2.03 because
Apple licensed Microsoft to use and improve those same "visual
displays" back in Windows 1.0 days.
The remaining 2% is composed of two significant changes that are
in Windows 2.03 but not in Windows 1.0 (which the aforementioned license
covered). Those are:
* Overlapping windows. W-1.0 used a tiled window manager,
and would rearrange the screen so there was never any
overlap or blank space. W-2.03 does it the way everybody
else does it.
* Icons are little windows. W-1.0 had an area at the bottom
of the screen where if you moved a window there, it would
iconify, and the icons sat there in a line. W-2.03 does
it like SunView, e.g. you use a menu item or accelerator
to open or close a window, and the window and its icon
have separate screen positions, both of which can be moved
anywhere by the user.
Even *I* could prove to the judge that Apple did not invent either of
these two visual displays. I have no doubt that HP's capable lawyers
(and Microsoft's) can do so. If Apple didn't invent them, they are not
original and Apple can't copyright them, so Apple can't sue someone for
copyright infringement over them. So unless something very funny
happens, the case is over.
Microsoft's and HP's briefs filed with the judge continuously point out
how the suit resembles a nuisance suit and how Apple's lawyers
constantly misinterpret the judge's rulings, the clear wording of
contracts, etc in order to distort and prolong it. I think they have a
good shot at proving nuisance and an attempt at restraint of trade.
They have filed a countersuit with these allegations and are looking
for monetary damages.
This does not directly benefit GNU folks, who would like to see the
question of "can you copyright the user interface of a computer program"
settled (in the negative) by a court. This court will not settle it,
because if there is no basis for a copyright infringement suit, the
question of whether the copyright itself is valid will not be examined.
But it means that Apple and other assholes will think twice about
pulling this stunt again.
Perhaps we should file an amicus (friend of the court) brief suggesting
that the judge order Apple to refrain from similar nuisance suits?
Thinking twice may not deter the bozos who thought up the suit in the
first place.
--
John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com
"And if there's danger don't you try to overlook it,
Because you knew the job was dangerous when you took it"