Talk:Apple Computer, Inc. v. Mackintosh Computers Ltd.

Canada: Law Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Apple Inc. Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge?[edit]

Should this be merged back into the Notable litigation of Apple Computer article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psantora (talk • contribs) 9 May 2006.

I don't think so, because it seems to be an important case in Canadian law and the folks in that WikiProject probably want it kept seperate. I think the best thing would be to introduce a paragraph to Notable litigation of Apple Computer and use the {{main}} template, as per the Apple Corps case, Does case, and others. --kingboyk 19:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it. See what you think. --kingboyk 19:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Paul^C/_T+ 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]