Talk:Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

I think that the Windows Taskbar was actually based/ripped off from the NextStep Dock, and as we all know NextStep became "as one" with Apple and OS X inherited the Dock.

Xerox's technicality

If I remember the story correctly, the 'technicality' was that the Xerox people didn't get it properly copyrighted before showing it to Apple. As the article stands, it leaves an aching feeling for what that technicality was, so can anyone modify the article and say for sure? --Calamari 03:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You can read some history of Apple, Xerox, and Microsoft here. Apple paid a lot of money to see (a small subset of) Xerox's development. There is no technicality here. It was a simple quid pro quo.BU

Headline text

Apple. v. Microsoft Corp. is the most complicated software copyright lawsuit to date" ==

the most complicated... what about SCO v. IBM Linux lawsuit???

  I spite of much public armwaving and bellicosity on SCO's part, in reality that suit is not nearly as complex on technical matters since SCO has been able to provide the court with practically zero proof of their claims, even prompting the Judge at one point to comment on SCO's "astonishing lack of evidence."  

NeXTSTEP

Mac OS dock is derived from the NeXTSTEP dock. But NeXT, Inc. was purchased by Apple (long before OS X) in 1996.

Other GUI borrowing

This section included the statement:

many features of the Macintosh and Windows GUIs have been incorporated into the windowing environments of unrelated third-parties, such as OpenWindows, X11, and Solaris.

I removed the "such as..." clause since there are no examples given of borrowing by any of these. None of them seems to be candidates for this claim in any event: OpenWindows used the OPEN LOOK L&F, co-developed by AT&T, Sun and Xerox, which predates the lawsuit. X11 does not have a specific L&F; rather, it's the underlying foundation for many different GUIs. Solaris' GUI environment is not unique to Solaris -- it's either CDE or GNOME, so unless there's some Solaris-specific modification to either of those that is in question, it would be more appropriate to call out which one has the borrowed elements, and what those elements are.

The underlying point is that any statement of borrowing needs to be backed by an example of which elements were borrowed, rather than just making an unsubstantiated blanket statement.--NapoliRoma 19:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove the entire section. It seems to debate with itself whether Apple borrowed the Dock idea starting with NeXTSTEP. I've added the fact that Apple bought NeXT, so there is no question of borrowing there. Even if the section did make a point it would be tangential to the article, which is about the lawsuit, not whether Apple ever copied anything. Any objectins?--agr 03:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The lawsuit concerns supposed copying of GUIs that goes on in the computer industry. The section basically gives context as well as some idea of the long term repurcussions, suggesting that despite Apple's protestations, it's always been the case that GUI work has been built upon by others, with even modern-day Apple borrowing features that are traceable all the way back to Windows 1.0 (the Dock.)

As such, I see it as relevant and useful. It might be better reworded, but even in its present form the article is better for its inclusion. --Squiggleslash 13:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Move page ?

Should the page be moved to reflect Apple Computer, Inc.'s name change to Apple, Inc. ? Dravick 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Only if the associated court case is similarly renamed, which I doubt will happen in a million years. Squiggleslash 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)