An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
Its another UI copyrighting lawsuit, like the "look and feel" microsoft and apple lawsuit back in 1994 - this is an extract from a wiki article on the subject - of which Microsoft (as mentioned elsewhere, were obliged to produce Office and other software, and support it, for Mac) See (Mactopia...or not? Microsoft software and support for Mac?).
Quote:
Apple Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer 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. Some critics claimed that Apple was really attempting to gain all intellectual property rights over the desktop metaphor for computer interfaces, and perhaps all GUIs, on personal computers. Apple lost all claims in the lawsuit, except that the court ruled that the trash can icon and file folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's now-forgotten NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994, [1] and the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court by Apple was denied.
Apple has previously agreed to license certain parts of its GUI to Microsoft for use in Windows 1.0. When Microsoft made some changes in Windows 2.0, such as overlapping windows and other more Macintosh-like GUI features, Apple filed suit, and then added additional claims to the suit when Microsoft released Windows 3.0.
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 fact that they are rectangular, the fact that they are resizable, the fact that they overlap, and the fact that they have title bars) was not as important as all these elements taken together. After long argument, the judge insisted on an analysis of specific GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringements. Apple came up with a list of 189 GUI elements; the judge 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.
In a twist midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple, claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invested in Apple and 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 because the three year statute of limitations had passed (i.e. Xerox waited too long to file suit.)
A company calling itself IP Innovation, LLC, is suing Apple for allegedly infringing mid-1970s user interface technology that was patented filed on behalf of Xerox PARC in, ahem...1991. Ars Technica has a pretty comprehensive run-down of the situation. This is the best bit:
Quote:
Xerox did get around to suing Apple eventually in 1989, prompting Steve Jobs to dismiss the company as an organization so dysfunctional that they "couldn't even sue anyone on time."
IP Innovation has filed at least 32 patent-related lawsuits over the last few years. I love the guts behind the name, don't you? "We let others innovate, then we buy the patents so we can sue even more successful companies!" I understand that they're soon going to go after GE for infringing on Prometheus's patent on light. In all seriousness, I'm a tremendous admirer of the innovators at Xerox PARC.
AppleInsider is reporting that an Illinois-based company and its Nevada partner have filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc., alleging that Mac OS X 10.4 'Tiger' infringes an interface patent relating to the OS's nearly universal use of tabs. The suit was filed in the patent troll's and forum shopper's favorite venue: Marshall, TX.
Quote:
The patent in question is 5072412, which was originally issued to Xerox in 1987, but is now owned or licensed to IP Innovation LLC and its parent Technology Licensing Corporation. 'Category dividers triggered by Spotlight searches, as well as page tabs in the Safari web browser, bear the closest similarity to the now 20-year-old description' of the patent, according to the article.
IP Innovation is requesting damages in excess of $20 million and an injunction against future sales and distribution of Mac OS X 10.4. Software patent reform can't come soon enough!
It will hardly go anywhere - what do you think of this rogue company "IP Innovations" and their revival of a 14 year old lawsuit? I'm sure the the fate of the earlier lawsuits should dictate a quick dismissal of this one...
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
