ROFL "true touch" WTF are you smoking?
Don t Let Anybody Tell You That Businesses Create Jobs
- Thread starter Antares
- Start date
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
You failed to read the article provided.
The early designs blocked photons from the display, they did not register actual contact with the screen. The Palm style screen used pressure sensitive technology.
Microsoft created true touch technology in 2002 - and Apple pays them for every single device that employs it.
ROFL ..... omfg that's so funny. Put down the shovel. Mickeysoft did not invent touch screens, by any measure whatsoever.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
I take it you're an Apply Fan Boi?
See, i have no problem with Apple - the "war" you think is raging is just a fantasy, It never existed.
No, I'm not an apple fan boy.
Why do you think that only mickysoft or @pple could have invented touch screen tech? FYI putting a well known technology into your product is not inventing the technology.
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
Touchscreen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A touchscreen is an electronic visual display that the user can control through simple or multi-touch gestures by touching the screen with a special stylus/pen and-or one or more fingers. Some touchscreens use an ordinary or specially coated gloves to work while others use a special stylus/pen only. The user can use the touchscreen to react to what is displayed and to control how it is displayed (for example by zooming the text size).
The touchscreen enables the user to interact directly with what is displayed, rather than using a mouse, touchpad, or any other intermediate device (other than a stylus, which is optional for most modern touchscreens).
Touchscreens are common in devices such as game consoles, personal computers, tablet computers, and smartphones. They can also be attached to computers or, as terminals, to networks. They also play a prominent role in the design of digital appliances such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), satellite navigation devices, mobile phones, and video games and some books (Electronic books).
The popularity of smartphones, tablets, and many types of information appliances is driving the demand and acceptance of common touchscreens for portable and functional electronics. Touchscreens are found in the medical field and in heavy industry, as well as for automated teller machines (ATMs), and kiosks such as museum displays or room automation, where keyboard and mouse systems do not allow a suitably intuitive, rapid, or accurate interaction by the user with the display's content.
Historically, the touchscreen sensor and its accompanying controller-based firmware have been made available by a wide array of after-market system integrators, and not by display, chip, or motherboard manufacturers. Display manufacturers and chip manufacturers worldwide have acknowledged the trend toward acceptance of touchscreens as a highly desirable user interface component and have begun to integrate touchscreens into
History
E.A. Johnson described his work on capacitive touch screens in a short article which is published in 1965[5] and then more fully—along with photographs and diagrams—in an article published in 1967.[6] A description of the applicability of the touch technology for air traffic control was described in an article published in 1968.[7] Frank Beck and Bent Stumpe, engineers from CERN, developed a transparent touch screen in the early 1970s and it was manufactured by CERN and put to use in 1973.[8] This touchscreen was based on Bent Stumpe's work at a television factory in the early 1960s. A resistive touch screen was developed by American inventor G. Samuel Hurst who received US patent #3,911,215 on Oct. 7, 1975.[9] The first version was produced in 1982.[10]
In 1972, a group at the University of Illinois filed for a patent on an optical touch screen.[11] These touch screens became a standard part of the Magnavox Plato IV Student Terminal. Thousands of these were built for the PLATO IV system. These touch screens had a crossed array of 16 by 16 infrared position sensors, each composed of an LED on one edge of the screen and a matched phototransistor on the other edge, all mounted in front of a monochrome plasma display panel. This arrangement can sense any fingertip-sized opaque object in close proximity to the screen. A similar touch screen was used on the HP-150 starting in 1983; this was one of the world's earliest commercial touchscreen computers.[12] HP mounted their infrared transmitters and receivers around the bezel of a 9" Sony Cathode Ray Tube (CRT).
In the early 1980s General Motors tasked its Delco Electronics division with a project aimed at replacing an automobile's non essential functions (i.e. other than throttle, transmission, braking and steering) from mechanical or electro-mechanical systems with solid state alternatives wherever possible. The finished device was dubbed the ECC for "Electronic Control Center", a digital computer and software control system hardwired to various peripheral sensors, servos, solenoids, antenna and a monochrome CRT touchscreen that functioned both as display and sole method of input.[13] The EEC replaced the traditional mechanical stereo, fan, heater and air conditioner controls and displays, and was capable of providing very detailed and specific information about the vehicle's cumulative and current operating status in real time. The ECC was standard equipment on the 1985-1989 Buick Riviera and later the 1988-89 Buick Reatta, but was unpopular with consumers partly due to technophobia on behalf of some traditional Buick customers, but mostly because of costly to repair technical problems suffered by the ECC's touchscreen which being the sole access method, would render climate control or stereo operation impossible.[14]
Multi-touch technology began in 1982, when the University of Toronto's Input Research Group developed the first human-input multi-touch system, using a frosted-glass panel with a camera placed behind the glass. In 1985, the University of Toronto group including Bill Buxton developed a multi-touch tablet that used capacitance rather than bulky camera-based optical sensing systems (see History of multi-touch).
In 1986 the first graphical point of sale software was demonstrated on the 16-bit Atari 520ST color computer. It featured a color touchscreen widget-driven interface.[15] The ViewTouch[16] point of sale software was first shown by its developer, Gene Mosher, at Fall Comdex, 1986, in Las Vegas, Nevada to visitors at the Atari Computer demonstration area and was the first commercially available POS system with a widget-driven color graphic touch screen interface.[17]
Sears et al. (1990)[18] gave a review of academic research on single and multi-touch human–computer interaction of the time, describing gestures such as rotating knobs, swiping the screen to activate a switch (or a U-shaped gesture for a toggle switch), and touchscreen keyboards (including a study that showed that users could type at 25 wpm for a touchscreen keyboard compared with 58 wpm for a standard keyboard); multitouch gestures such as selecting a range of a line, connecting objects, and a "tap-click" gesture to select while maintaining location with another finger are also described.
In c. 1991-1992, the Sun Star7 prototype PDA implemented a touchscreen with inertial scrolling.[19] In 1993, the IBM Simon - the first touchscreen phone - was released.
An early attempt at a handheld game console with touchscreen controls was Sega's intended successor to the Game Gear, though the device was ultimately shelved and never released due to the expensive cost of touchscreen technology in the early 1990s. Touchscreens would not be popularly used for video games until the release of the Nintendo DS in 2004.[20] Until recently, most consumer touchscreens could only sense one point of contact at a time, and few have had the capability to sense how hard one is touching. This has changed with the commercialization of multi-touch technology.
Bill Buxton--The Man Who Invented Touch Screen Touch
Posted by: Bruce Nussbaum on October 23, 2009
I went out drinking with Bill Buxton in Providence, RI, at the recent BIF5 conference and we talked about how he was building three canoes based on three Canadian Native People’s styles. The Cree canoe was finished and Buxton did it without any power-tools. Now this is important (I’m connecting dots here so bear with me), because last night at the National Design Awards presentation, the winner of the Interaction Design award, Jeff Han from Perceptive Pixel, ran a little movie showing his inspiration for the big touch screen technology we’re seeing on TV and Tom Cruise movies (moving stuff around on a big screen with hands).
The movie showed Buxton, about 20 years ago, sketching out a touch-screen format on a sheet of paper and asking why do we need a mouse to intermediate between us and a computer? Great question. That question inspired Han who went on to develop his interactive technology and debut it at TED in 2006. It showed up later in the movies with Cruise and then CNN for the Presidential election.
In Providence, I went to a talk by Buxton at Brown and he showed me the next iteration of interactive technology being developed by his scientist friend there. Awesome.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A touchscreen is an electronic visual display that the user can control through simple or multi-touch gestures by touching the screen with a special stylus/pen and-or one or more fingers. Some touchscreens use an ordinary or specially coated gloves to work while others use a special stylus/pen only. The user can use the touchscreen to react to what is displayed and to control how it is displayed (for example by zooming the text size).
The touchscreen enables the user to interact directly with what is displayed, rather than using a mouse, touchpad, or any other intermediate device (other than a stylus, which is optional for most modern touchscreens).
Touchscreens are common in devices such as game consoles, personal computers, tablet computers, and smartphones. They can also be attached to computers or, as terminals, to networks. They also play a prominent role in the design of digital appliances such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), satellite navigation devices, mobile phones, and video games and some books (Electronic books).
The popularity of smartphones, tablets, and many types of information appliances is driving the demand and acceptance of common touchscreens for portable and functional electronics. Touchscreens are found in the medical field and in heavy industry, as well as for automated teller machines (ATMs), and kiosks such as museum displays or room automation, where keyboard and mouse systems do not allow a suitably intuitive, rapid, or accurate interaction by the user with the display's content.
Historically, the touchscreen sensor and its accompanying controller-based firmware have been made available by a wide array of after-market system integrators, and not by display, chip, or motherboard manufacturers. Display manufacturers and chip manufacturers worldwide have acknowledged the trend toward acceptance of touchscreens as a highly desirable user interface component and have begun to integrate touchscreens into
History
E.A. Johnson described his work on capacitive touch screens in a short article which is published in 1965[5] and then more fully—along with photographs and diagrams—in an article published in 1967.[6] A description of the applicability of the touch technology for air traffic control was described in an article published in 1968.[7] Frank Beck and Bent Stumpe, engineers from CERN, developed a transparent touch screen in the early 1970s and it was manufactured by CERN and put to use in 1973.[8] This touchscreen was based on Bent Stumpe's work at a television factory in the early 1960s. A resistive touch screen was developed by American inventor G. Samuel Hurst who received US patent #3,911,215 on Oct. 7, 1975.[9] The first version was produced in 1982.[10]
In 1972, a group at the University of Illinois filed for a patent on an optical touch screen.[11] These touch screens became a standard part of the Magnavox Plato IV Student Terminal. Thousands of these were built for the PLATO IV system. These touch screens had a crossed array of 16 by 16 infrared position sensors, each composed of an LED on one edge of the screen and a matched phototransistor on the other edge, all mounted in front of a monochrome plasma display panel. This arrangement can sense any fingertip-sized opaque object in close proximity to the screen. A similar touch screen was used on the HP-150 starting in 1983; this was one of the world's earliest commercial touchscreen computers.[12] HP mounted their infrared transmitters and receivers around the bezel of a 9" Sony Cathode Ray Tube (CRT).
In the early 1980s General Motors tasked its Delco Electronics division with a project aimed at replacing an automobile's non essential functions (i.e. other than throttle, transmission, braking and steering) from mechanical or electro-mechanical systems with solid state alternatives wherever possible. The finished device was dubbed the ECC for "Electronic Control Center", a digital computer and software control system hardwired to various peripheral sensors, servos, solenoids, antenna and a monochrome CRT touchscreen that functioned both as display and sole method of input.[13] The EEC replaced the traditional mechanical stereo, fan, heater and air conditioner controls and displays, and was capable of providing very detailed and specific information about the vehicle's cumulative and current operating status in real time. The ECC was standard equipment on the 1985-1989 Buick Riviera and later the 1988-89 Buick Reatta, but was unpopular with consumers partly due to technophobia on behalf of some traditional Buick customers, but mostly because of costly to repair technical problems suffered by the ECC's touchscreen which being the sole access method, would render climate control or stereo operation impossible.[14]
Multi-touch technology began in 1982, when the University of Toronto's Input Research Group developed the first human-input multi-touch system, using a frosted-glass panel with a camera placed behind the glass. In 1985, the University of Toronto group including Bill Buxton developed a multi-touch tablet that used capacitance rather than bulky camera-based optical sensing systems (see History of multi-touch).
In 1986 the first graphical point of sale software was demonstrated on the 16-bit Atari 520ST color computer. It featured a color touchscreen widget-driven interface.[15] The ViewTouch[16] point of sale software was first shown by its developer, Gene Mosher, at Fall Comdex, 1986, in Las Vegas, Nevada to visitors at the Atari Computer demonstration area and was the first commercially available POS system with a widget-driven color graphic touch screen interface.[17]
Sears et al. (1990)[18] gave a review of academic research on single and multi-touch human–computer interaction of the time, describing gestures such as rotating knobs, swiping the screen to activate a switch (or a U-shaped gesture for a toggle switch), and touchscreen keyboards (including a study that showed that users could type at 25 wpm for a touchscreen keyboard compared with 58 wpm for a standard keyboard); multitouch gestures such as selecting a range of a line, connecting objects, and a "tap-click" gesture to select while maintaining location with another finger are also described.
In c. 1991-1992, the Sun Star7 prototype PDA implemented a touchscreen with inertial scrolling.[19] In 1993, the IBM Simon - the first touchscreen phone - was released.
An early attempt at a handheld game console with touchscreen controls was Sega's intended successor to the Game Gear, though the device was ultimately shelved and never released due to the expensive cost of touchscreen technology in the early 1990s. Touchscreens would not be popularly used for video games until the release of the Nintendo DS in 2004.[20] Until recently, most consumer touchscreens could only sense one point of contact at a time, and few have had the capability to sense how hard one is touching. This has changed with the commercialization of multi-touch technology.
Bill Buxton--The Man Who Invented Touch Screen Touch
Posted by: Bruce Nussbaum on October 23, 2009
I went out drinking with Bill Buxton in Providence, RI, at the recent BIF5 conference and we talked about how he was building three canoes based on three Canadian Native People’s styles. The Cree canoe was finished and Buxton did it without any power-tools. Now this is important (I’m connecting dots here so bear with me), because last night at the National Design Awards presentation, the winner of the Interaction Design award, Jeff Han from Perceptive Pixel, ran a little movie showing his inspiration for the big touch screen technology we’re seeing on TV and Tom Cruise movies (moving stuff around on a big screen with hands).
The movie showed Buxton, about 20 years ago, sketching out a touch-screen format on a sheet of paper and asking why do we need a mouse to intermediate between us and a computer? Great question. That question inspired Han who went on to develop his interactive technology and debut it at TED in 2006. It showed up later in the movies with Cruise and then CNN for the Presidential election.
In Providence, I went to a talk by Buxton at Brown and he showed me the next iteration of interactive technology being developed by his scientist friend there. Awesome.
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
Android makers must pay Microsoft, or else—software giant sues Samsung
Samsung shipped 314 million Android phones in 2014, and Microsoft wants to get paid.
by Joe Mullin - Aug 1 2014, 5:55pm EDT
122
Samsung was late in making a patent royalty payment to Microsoft over the Android phones it sells, and today that led to the predictable result: a lawsuit.
"Today's legal action is simply to enforce our contract with Samsung," Microsoft wrote in a blog post explaining its actions. "We don't take lightly filing a legal action, especially against a company with which we've enjoyed a long and productive partnership."
The two companies reached a patent deal in 2011, in which Samsung presumably paid Microsoft for the patents it says apply to devices running Google's Android operating system.
According to Microsoft, Samsung used the Microsoft-Nokia merger "as an excuse to breach its contract." The Microsoft post, by VP David Howard, emphasizes how dominant Samsung's phone business has become:
So what changed? Since Samsung entered into the agreement, its smartphone sales have quadrupled and it is now the leading worldwide player in the smartphone market. Consider this: when Samsung entered into the agreement in 2011, it shipped 82 million Android smartphones. Just three years later, it shipped 314 million Android smartphones. [Source: IDC, WW Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker – 2014 Q1, Published: May 2014] Samsung predicted it would be successful, but no one imagined their Android smartphone sales would increase this much.
Microsoft has hundreds of patents that it says must be paid for by anyone who makes Android phones. It's kept those patents secret, although recently a Chinese government website revealed what those patents are.
The patent licensing side of Microsoft's business has grown steadily over the years. Recent estimates of its Android licensing business suggest Microsoft is earning somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion from Android device makers paying royalties. Microsoft said last year—when it was still getting payments from Samsung—that more than 50 percent of Android devices are made by companies with licensing deals in place.
The complaint (PDF) has been posted by Geekwire. Samsung isn't being sued for patent infringement, but rather breach of contract. Microsoft is only seeking royalty payments to which it believes it is already entitled, as well as interest—it isn't seeking damages for patent infringement per se.
Sure you are not just a little confused about your rantings??
Samsung shipped 314 million Android phones in 2014, and Microsoft wants to get paid.
by Joe Mullin - Aug 1 2014, 5:55pm EDT
122
Samsung was late in making a patent royalty payment to Microsoft over the Android phones it sells, and today that led to the predictable result: a lawsuit.
"Today's legal action is simply to enforce our contract with Samsung," Microsoft wrote in a blog post explaining its actions. "We don't take lightly filing a legal action, especially against a company with which we've enjoyed a long and productive partnership."
The two companies reached a patent deal in 2011, in which Samsung presumably paid Microsoft for the patents it says apply to devices running Google's Android operating system.
According to Microsoft, Samsung used the Microsoft-Nokia merger "as an excuse to breach its contract." The Microsoft post, by VP David Howard, emphasizes how dominant Samsung's phone business has become:
So what changed? Since Samsung entered into the agreement, its smartphone sales have quadrupled and it is now the leading worldwide player in the smartphone market. Consider this: when Samsung entered into the agreement in 2011, it shipped 82 million Android smartphones. Just three years later, it shipped 314 million Android smartphones. [Source: IDC, WW Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker – 2014 Q1, Published: May 2014] Samsung predicted it would be successful, but no one imagined their Android smartphone sales would increase this much.
Microsoft has hundreds of patents that it says must be paid for by anyone who makes Android phones. It's kept those patents secret, although recently a Chinese government website revealed what those patents are.
The patent licensing side of Microsoft's business has grown steadily over the years. Recent estimates of its Android licensing business suggest Microsoft is earning somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion from Android device makers paying royalties. Microsoft said last year—when it was still getting payments from Samsung—that more than 50 percent of Android devices are made by companies with licensing deals in place.
The complaint (PDF) has been posted by Geekwire. Samsung isn't being sued for patent infringement, but rather breach of contract. Microsoft is only seeking royalty payments to which it believes it is already entitled, as well as interest—it isn't seeking damages for patent infringement per se.
Sure you are not just a little confused about your rantings??
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation)
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]Apple Computer, Inc. vs. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. (now Apple Inc.) sought to prevent Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems.[1] The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]...".[2] In the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's.[3] The district court dismissed Xerox's claims without addressing whether Apple's GUI infringed Xerox's.[4] Apple lost all claims in the Microsoft suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon and folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994,[2] and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.
Contents
Background
Apple had agreed to license certain parts of its GUI to Microsoft for use in Windows 1.0, but when Microsoft made changes in Windows 2.0 adding overlapping windows and other features found in the Macintosh GUI, Apple filed suit. Apple added additional claims to the suit when Microsoft released Windows 3.0.[5][6]
Apple claimed the "look and feel" of the Macintosh operating system, taken as a whole, was protected by copyright, and that each individual element of the interface (such as the existence of windows on the screen, the rectangular appearance of windows, windows could be resized, overlap, and have title bars) was not as important as all these elements taken together. After oral arguments, the court insisted on an analysis of specific GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringements. Apple listed 189 GUI elements; the court decided that 179 of these elements had been licensed to Microsoft in the Windows 1.0 agreement and most of the remaining 10 elements were not copyrightable—either they were unoriginal to Apple, or they were the only possible way of expressing a particular idea.[7]
Midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invited the Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research lab; these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintosh GUI. Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case was dismissed, for a variety of legal reasons. [8]
Court case
The district court ruled that it would require a standard of "virtual identity" between Windows and the Macintosh at trial in order for Apple to prove copyright infringement. Apple believed this to be too narrow of a standard and that a more broad "look and feel" was all that should be necessary at trial. As a result, both parties agreed that a jury trial was unnecessary given the rulings, and Apple filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in order to have the district court's characterization overruled.[9]
After the district court ruled in favor of Microsoft, Apple appealed the decision arguing that the district court only considered infringements on the individual elements of Apple's GUI, rather than the interface as a whole. The appeals court almost entirely affirmed the ruling of the district court, establishing that, "almost all the similarities spring either from the license or from basic ideas and their obvious expression... illicit copying could occur only if the works as a whole are virtually identical."[2] However, the circuit court did reverse the district court's decision not to award attorney's fees to Microsoft, clarifying and sending the case back to the district court to resolve the issue.
Citing Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp, the circuit court dissected the GUI in order to separate expression from ideas (as expression, but not ideas, are covered by copyright law).[2][10] The court outlined five ideas that it identified as basic to a GUI desktop: windows, icon images of office items, manipulations of icons, menus, and the opening and closing of objects.[2] The court established that Apple could not make copyright claims based on these ideas and could only make claims on the precise expression of them.
The court also pointed out that many of Apple's claims fail on an originality basis. Apple admittedly licensed many of its representations from Xerox, and copyright protection only extends to original expression. Apple returned to its "complete look and feel" argument, stating that while the individual components were not original, the complete GUI was. The court rejected these arguments because the parts were not original.
Impact
Much of the court's ruling was based on the original licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft for Windows 1.0, and this fact made the case more of a contractual matter than of copyright law, to the chagrin of Apple. This also meant that the court avoided a more far-reaching "look and feel copyright" precedent ruling. However, the case did establish that the analytic dissection (rather than the general "look and feel") of a user interface is vital to any copyright decision on such matters.
In 1997, three years after the lawsuit was decided, all lingering infringement questions against Microsoft regarding the Lisa and Macintosh GUI as well as Apple's "QuickTime piracy" lawsuit against Microsoft were settled in direct negotiations. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer their default browser, to the detriment of Netscape. Microsoft agreed to continue developing Microsoft Office and other software for the Mac over the next five years. Microsoft also purchased $150 million of nonvoting Apple stock. Both parties entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement.[11][
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation)
| Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| Full case name | Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Co. |
| Citation(s) | 35 F.3d 1435; 63 USLW 2259, 1994 Copr.L.Dec. P 27,301, 32 U.S.P.Q.2d 1086 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Ferdinand Francis Fernandez, Pamela Ann Rymer, and Thomas G. Nelson |
Contents
Background
Apple had agreed to license certain parts of its GUI to Microsoft for use in Windows 1.0, but when Microsoft made changes in Windows 2.0 adding overlapping windows and other features found in the Macintosh GUI, Apple filed suit. Apple added additional claims to the suit when Microsoft released Windows 3.0.[5][6]
Apple claimed the "look and feel" of the Macintosh operating system, taken as a whole, was protected by copyright, and that each individual element of the interface (such as the existence of windows on the screen, the rectangular appearance of windows, windows could be resized, overlap, and have title bars) was not as important as all these elements taken together. After oral arguments, the court insisted on an analysis of specific GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringements. Apple listed 189 GUI elements; the court decided that 179 of these elements had been licensed to Microsoft in the Windows 1.0 agreement and most of the remaining 10 elements were not copyrightable—either they were unoriginal to Apple, or they were the only possible way of expressing a particular idea.[7]
Midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invited the Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research lab; these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintosh GUI. Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case was dismissed, for a variety of legal reasons. [8]
Court case
The district court ruled that it would require a standard of "virtual identity" between Windows and the Macintosh at trial in order for Apple to prove copyright infringement. Apple believed this to be too narrow of a standard and that a more broad "look and feel" was all that should be necessary at trial. As a result, both parties agreed that a jury trial was unnecessary given the rulings, and Apple filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in order to have the district court's characterization overruled.[9]
After the district court ruled in favor of Microsoft, Apple appealed the decision arguing that the district court only considered infringements on the individual elements of Apple's GUI, rather than the interface as a whole. The appeals court almost entirely affirmed the ruling of the district court, establishing that, "almost all the similarities spring either from the license or from basic ideas and their obvious expression... illicit copying could occur only if the works as a whole are virtually identical."[2] However, the circuit court did reverse the district court's decision not to award attorney's fees to Microsoft, clarifying and sending the case back to the district court to resolve the issue.
Citing Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp, the circuit court dissected the GUI in order to separate expression from ideas (as expression, but not ideas, are covered by copyright law).[2][10] The court outlined five ideas that it identified as basic to a GUI desktop: windows, icon images of office items, manipulations of icons, menus, and the opening and closing of objects.[2] The court established that Apple could not make copyright claims based on these ideas and could only make claims on the precise expression of them.
The court also pointed out that many of Apple's claims fail on an originality basis. Apple admittedly licensed many of its representations from Xerox, and copyright protection only extends to original expression. Apple returned to its "complete look and feel" argument, stating that while the individual components were not original, the complete GUI was. The court rejected these arguments because the parts were not original.
Impact
Much of the court's ruling was based on the original licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft for Windows 1.0, and this fact made the case more of a contractual matter than of copyright law, to the chagrin of Apple. This also meant that the court avoided a more far-reaching "look and feel copyright" precedent ruling. However, the case did establish that the analytic dissection (rather than the general "look and feel") of a user interface is vital to any copyright decision on such matters.
In 1997, three years after the lawsuit was decided, all lingering infringement questions against Microsoft regarding the Lisa and Macintosh GUI as well as Apple's "QuickTime piracy" lawsuit against Microsoft were settled in direct negotiations. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer their default browser, to the detriment of Netscape. Microsoft agreed to continue developing Microsoft Office and other software for the Mac over the next five years. Microsoft also purchased $150 million of nonvoting Apple stock. Both parties entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement.[11][
Wyld Kard
Platinum Member
When Hillary Clinton makes an idiotic statement like "Don't let anybody tell you that businesses create jobs", it gives me yet another reason not to vote for the corrupt old hag, IF she does decide to run for president.
Last edited:
Missourian
Diamond Member
Sounds like someone else I know..."If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
ninja007
Gold Member
Don't let anybody tell you the government creates jobs. (Military excluded)
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
Did you forget that it was President Clinton who signed NAFTA? If you want to look at jobs going overseas, blame a Democrat.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
It is so good of you to realize it was the creative innovators that are the true jobs creators. Employees are simply the production supplier hired to mass produce someone else's idea, thank God we have those willing to take risks bringing their ingenious ideas to life in order that so many others can benefit with a job.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
Not when you have manufacturing and technology where they can be replaced by robotics who can do the job more efficiently and drones technology that's now able to deliver packages. If you don't have the skills and education to keep up with the changing times, you better look to Walmart or a career flipping burgers.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
Last edited:
OnePercenter
Gold Member
- Apr 10, 2013
- 23,667
- 1,884
- 265
I did.....thrice.
OnePercenter
Gold Member
- Apr 10, 2013
- 23,667
- 1,884
- 265
There isn't a free market.
OnePercenter
Gold Member
- Apr 10, 2013
- 23,667
- 1,884
- 265
The frozen tundra of Canada must be getting to you.
The employee(s) make all the money for the company. The owner created the platform to do it.
OnePercenter
Gold Member
- Apr 10, 2013
- 23,667
- 1,884
- 265
But yet you can't refute her statement.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
Iran Says Any Country Can Pass Through Strait of Hormuz Except US and Israel. US Media Twisting Story- Started by munkle
- Replies: 3
-
Mark Zuckerberg is building an AI agent to help him be CEO- Started by EvilEyeFleegle
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
Canada and Denmark are now enemies of the United States- Started by Anarchy666
- Replies: 37
