Content deleted Content added
look and feel - later decisions |
|||
Line 68:
The same look and feel can be created by entirely different software products, and two internally very similar software products may present very different look and feel.
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]] sued [[Microsoft]] and [[Hewlett-Packard]] for copying the [[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}}
Only patent law can protect the behavior of a computer program.
Line 153 ⟶ 157:
|date=May 31 2012 |year=2012
|accessdate=2012-05-31}}
*{{cite book |ref=harv |url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=y6uJ7u4331cC&pg=PA270
|title=Major Principles of Media Law
|first1=Wayne |last1=Overbeck |first2=Genelle |last2=Belmas
|publisher=Cengage Learning |year=2011 |ISBN=0495901954}}
*{{cite web |ref=harv
|url=http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/litigationresourcecenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2012/05/07/jury-says-google-infringed-but-it-can-t-agree-on-fair-use.aspx
| |||