gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) (06/29/90)
Noted in the 6/29/30 NY TIMES: Lotus has won, on the appeals level, their look-and-feel lawsuit they have leveled against one of their clone competitors. The judge in the case, Judge Keeton, wrote, "I conclude that a menu command system is capable of being expressed in many if not an unlimited number of ways and the command structure of 1-2-3 is an original and non-obvious way of expressing a command structure." I leave it as an excercise to the student on the applicability to the Apple-Microsoft suit.
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (06/30/90)
In article <4584@milton.u.washington.edu>, gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes: > Noted in the 6/29/30 NY TIMES: > > Lotus has won, on the appeals level, their look-and-feel lawsuit > they have leveled against one of their clone competitors. The judge in the > case, Judge Keeton, wrote, "I conclude that a menu command system is capable > of being expressed in many if not an unlimited number of ways and the > command structure of 1-2-3 is an original and non-obvious way of > expressing a command structure." > > I leave it as an excercise to the student on the applicability to > the Apple-Microsoft suit. In the Mess-DOS world, this is no great tragedy. Paperback Software et al. redesign their menu structure so it doesn't look the same as Lotus's (serves them right for copying?). But how does this affect Mac applications, where consistency is standard practice? Imagine if the person who invented pop-up menus patented the idea/put copyright notices on it, and the second person who wanted to use the idea had to think of a different way of doing it... Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu