Revision as of 14:29, 19 September 2022 edit Drone Better (talk \| contribs) 172 edits m Add link to the Whelan v. Jaslow article (which has since had an article made) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:46, 4 March 2024 edit undo Wbm1058 (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 278,591 edits m →Later decisions Next edit →
Line 65: However, the courts have tried to maintain common standards and tests for both types of SSO.{{sfn\|Epstein\|2006\|p=11-17}} Following the 1986 ''Broderbund'' ruling, [[Lotus Development Corporation]] sued two competing spreadsheet program vendors for copying the look and feel of their [[Lotus 1-2-3]] spreadsheet program, and [[Apple ~~Computers~~Computer]] sued [[Microsoft]] and [[Hewlett-Packard]] for copying the [[Classic Mac OS\|Macintosh operating system]]'s use of icons, pull-down menus and a mouse pointing device. Both companies drew criticism, since key elements of their look and feel had been introduced earlier by [[VisiCalc]] and [[Xerox]]. A 1992 federal court finding against Apple largely rejected the idea that copyright law could protect look and feel. The Lotus case went to the Supreme Court, which could not reach a decision, thus by default confirming the lower court's 1995 declaration that the words and commands used to manipulate the spreadsheet were a "method of operation", which is not subject to copyright.{{sfn\|Overbeck\|Belmas\|2011\|p=270-271}}

Structure, sequence and organization: Difference between revisions