apple vs microsoft case study

• Global directory Global directory
• Product logins Product logins
• Contact us Contact us

Our Privacy Statement & Cookie Policy

All Thomson Reuters websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.

• Privacy Statement
• Cookie Policy

Join our community

Sign up for industry-leading insights, updates, and all things AI @ Thomson Reuters.

The past, present, and future of legal research with generative AI

Legal technology has quickly evolved from a books-only exercise to outmatched AI-supported technology - with predictive analytics, precision research capabilities and powerful new citator tools.

CoCounsel: The GenAI assistant for legal professionals

Bringing together generative AI, trusted content, and expert insights for a new era of work.

Build a career without boundaries

Learn more about how Thomson Reuters informs the way forward in The Power of Purpose

Related posts

A year in review: How AI transformed the legal profession in 2023

How President Biden’s executive order on AI impacts the legal sector

What litigators can learn from the Odell Beckham Jr. Nike lawsuit

More answers.

Generative AI in legal tech: Balancing innovation with human oversight

5 compelling reasons to adore your external lawyers

The importance of background checks for employers: What to look for

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 759 F. Supp. 1444 (N.D. Cal. 1991)

759 F. Supp. 1444 (1991)

APPLE COMPUTER, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and Hewlett Packard Company, a California corporation, Defendants.

No. C-88-20149-VRW.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

March 6, 1991.

*1445 *1446 Chris R. Ottenweller, Brown & Bain, Palo Alto, Cal., Jack E. Brown, Brown & Bain, Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff Apple Computer, Inc.

David T. McDonald, Karl J. Quackenbush, McDonald & Quackenbush, William O. Ferron, Jr., Seed & Berry, Seattle, Wash., John N. Hauser, Lynn H. Pasahow, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, San Francisco, Cal., David H. Binney, Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, Preston, Thorgrimson, Shidler, Gates & Ellis, Seattle, Wash., for defendant Microsoft Corp.

Jon Stark, Pennie & Edmonds, New York City, Neil Boorstyn, McCutchen, Doyle, *1447 Brown & Enersen, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Hewlett-Packard Co.

WALKER, District Judge.

Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") filed this copyright infringement action on March 17, 1988, against Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") and Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP"), claiming that Microsoft's Windows computer operating system software and HP's NewWave computer application software infringed Apple's copyrights. The copyrights at issue protect the visual displays of Apple's Macintosh computer user interface.

In developing the Macintosh computer operating system software, Apple made one of the major commercial breakthroughs of the 1980's. The graphic user interface generated by the Macintosh system software consists of windows, icons, pull-down menus, and other images or visual displays projected on the computer screen. The Macintosh user interface [1] proved so intuitive that users were able fairly quickly to learn how to manipulate the screen displays and mouse and thus accomplish what had theretofore been the daunting task of learning to operate a computer. This breakthrough vaulted Apple to the top of the personal computer industry.

The visual displays in a computer user interface owe their appearance to system software and application programs. System software is a computer program that controls the computer hardware and schedules the execution of its functions. Such software is keyed to the computer hardware which it runs and establishes the visual framework or environment for the images on the computer screen, as does a proscenium in a theatre. In order to put a computer to a specific task, however, the user also needs an application program to further the stage analogy, the play. Application programs must be keyed to a particular system software and work within that system's framework or environment to carry out a specific application or task, e.g., word processing, accounting, and charting.

The obvious difference between a stage play and a computer interface is that in the latter, the user directs the action. The "user friendliness" of the Macintosh interface gave Apple a competitive edge over other personal computer manufacturers.

The commercial success of the Macintosh user interface and competition produced by Microsoft's analogous Windows Version 1.0 system software for IBM and IBM-compatible personal computers spawned a dispute between Apple and Microsoft over the rightful ownership of visual displays in this interface. The parties' dispute extended to ownership of visual displays in Microsoft Windows Version 1.0, and certain application programs: Microsoft Multiplan and Microsoft Excel, both spread-sheet programs; Microsoft Chart, a graphics program; Microsoft File, a database program; and Microsoft Word, a word processing program. [2] On November 22, 1985, Apple and Microsoft entered into an agreement ("1985 Agreement") to settle this dispute. The effect of that agreement upon the parties' rights was the first matter which the Honorable William W Schwarzer, to whom this case was previously assigned, sought to determine.

The 1985 Agreement provided that: (1) Microsoft acknowledged that the visual displays in the Microsoft Windows Version 1.0 operating system and the disputed application programs were derivative works of the visual displays generated by Apple's Macintosh operating system and that of an earlier Apple effort, the Lisa; (2) Apple granted to Microsoft a non-exclusive, royalty-free, nontransferable license to use these derivative visual displays in present and future software programs and to license them to *1448 third parties for use in new software programs; (3) Microsoft agreed not to offer a new application program similar in function to Microsoft Excel prior to October 1, 1986; (4) Apple waived any copyright, patent, trade secret or other claim it may have as to Windows Version 1.0; (5) Microsoft granted to Apple a non-exclusive, royalty-free, nontransferable license to use any new visual displays created by Microsoft during the next five years as part of the Microsoft Windows retail software products; and (6) Microsoft agreed to revise Microsoft Word, which operates on the Macintosh operating system, by enhancing and improving that program by July 31, 1986.

Relying on this agreement, Microsoft apparently granted HP a license to use the Microsoft Windows system software in the development of what came to be known as HP's NewWave application program. Sewell Declaration with Appendix in Support of Apple's Summary Judgment Motion, Exh. 39. After learning of the HP NewWave application program and evidently fearing that Microsoft's licensing activities would soon diminish the Macintosh competitive advantage, Apple filed this lawsuit.

Apple's complaint alleged three claims: (1) copyright infringement of Apple's audio-visual works by HP's NewWave and Microsoft's Windows Version 2.03; (2) contributory infringement against Microsoft for licensing Apple's visual displays to HP; and (3) unfair competition. Microsoft and HP asserted a variety of affirmative defenses, including two addressed in this order: Apple's allegedly fraudulent procurement of its copyrights and the asserted lack of originality of the Macintosh graphic user interface.

By orders dated March 20 and July 25, 1989, [3] Judge Schwarzer summarily adjudicated that: (1) the 1985 Agreement was not a complete defense to Apple's claim of copyright infringement; (2) the 1985 Agreement granted Microsoft a license to use in current and future software products the visual displays in Windows Version 1.0 and the five named Microsoft application programs; and (3) the visual displays in Windows 2.03 are in Windows 1.0 and the named application programs except for those relating to the use of overlapping main application windows and to certain changes in the appearance and manipulation of icons. Judge Schwarzer granted Microsoft partial summary judgment on Apple's infringement claim to the extent that Windows 2.03 and NewWave used visual displays that had appeared in Windows Version 1.0 and the five application programs named in the 1985 Agreement. 717 F. Supp. at 1435. Such visual displays were protected from Apple's infringement claims by virtue of the 1985 Agreement's licensing provisions. In reaching this conclusion, Judge Schwarzer rejected Apple's contention that the 1985 Agreement forbade Microsoft from developing in later system software an overall visual appearance more similar to that of the Macintosh than Windows Version 1.0. 717 F. Supp. at 1431. Judge Schwarzer determined that the 1985 Agreement licensed only those visual displays in Windows Version 1.0 and the five application programs named therein. 717 F. Supp. at 1435.

Judge Schwarzer's approach entailed analysis of the works' discrete "visual displays." [4] Pursuant to Judge Schwarzer's direction, Apple identified 189 Macintosh visual displays which it claimed appear in Windows Version 2.03 and NewWave. [5] Judge Schwarzer reorganized these visual displays into six categories and decided that with respect to Windows Version 2.03, all visual displays except the use of overlapping application windows and certain changes in the appearance and manipulation of icons were protected from Apple's infringement claims by virtue of the 1985 *1449 Agreement. [6] 717 F. Supp. at 1433-35.

By an order to which the parties stipulated during Judge Schwarzer's supervision of the litigation, this court limited the current phase of litigation to issues regarding the validity and scope of Apple's copyrights in the works in suit and whether any of the ten remaining visual displays are licensed under the 1985 Agreement between Apple and Microsoft.

Presently before the court are: (1) Microsoft's motion for partial summary judgment, seeking a determination that seven of the ten remaining visual displays from Apple's List are licensed by the 1985 Agreement, and that none of the remaining ten features is protectible expression within the scope of any of Apple's copyrights; (2) HP's motion seeking partial summary adjudication that: (a) each of the 50 remaining items [7] on Apple's list of similarities applicable to NewWave is not original; (b) each of the remaining items does not constitute protectible expression under copyright law; or (c) the scope of protection for such items is so narrow that only virtually identical copying can constitute infringement; and (d) 11 of the remaining 50 items are licensed visual displays under the 1985 Agreement and are protected against Apple's claim of copyright infringement; and (3) Apple's motion for partial summary adjudication that Apple's audiovisual copyrights are valid and the Microsoft and HP affirmative defenses should be dismissed.

Implicit in Judge Schwarzer's approach to the case is a rejection of Apple's fundamental contention that the "total concept and feel" of the Macintosh graphic user interface is protectible expression. Rather, Judge Schwarzer's approach appears to have been to exclude licensed visual displays prior to applying the substantial similarity of idea and expression tests. The undersigned has considered a different approach to the litigation from that adopted by Judge Schwarzer, one that would not begin by an attempt to parse the visual displays of the Macintosh system software. However appealing such an approach might seem in the abstract, the 1985 Agreement appears to license individual visual displays rather than an overall "total concept and feel." [8] After lengthy consideration, the undersigned has concluded that Judge Schwarzer correctly began his analysis of the issues in the litigation with the 1985 Agreement. The court thus turns to the motions directed to the remaining issues involving the 1985 Agreement.

In his July 25, 1989 order, [9] Judge Schwarzer found that particular changes in the appearance and use of icons, namely, the storage of icons anywhere on the screen rather than just at the bottom of the screen, the display of the icon's name below the icon, and changes in visual displays necessary to implement the overlapping windows system, were not licensed under the 1985 Agreement. 717 F. Supp. at 1433-1435. The remaining visual displays are:

A1 overlapping windows in front of a muted background;

A8 windows appearing partly on and off screen;

B1 top overlapping window displayed as the active window;

B2 window brought to top of stack when mouse clicked;

*1450 D1 gray outline of window dragged along with cursor when mouse pressed on window's title bar;

D2 window dragged to a new position when the mouse is released after dragging the window's outline;

D3 newly exposed areas on screen are redisplayed after the window is moved;

G4 icon may be moved to any part of screen by dragging along with cursor when user presses mouse on icon;

G5 display of icons on screen behind any open windows;

G6 icon's title displayed beneath icon; and

In support of its contention that seven of the ten remaining visual displays (A1, A8, B1, B2, D1, D2, D3) are licensed, Microsoft has submitted a videotape, Exhibit H, which shows that each of the seven visual displays appeared in the 1985 version of Microsoft Excel. Microsoft argues that any visual displays in Windows Version 1.0 and the five application programs developed by Microsoft (Word, Chart, File, Excel, and Multiplan) are licensed under the 1985 Agreement and, hence, are protected from Apple's claims of copyright infringement.

Apple contends that each of the Microsoft application programs developed for the Macintosh computer owes its distinctive Macintosh-like appearance to the Macintosh system software without which the application programs could not run. The visual displays which appear on the screen when an application program is running on a Macintosh computer are generated by the interaction between the Macintosh system software and the application program. Therefore, contends Apple, the only visual displays in the five named application programs which are licensed under the 1985 Agreement are those which are created by the code of the Microsoft application programs, not those generated by application calls to the Macintosh system software. The visual displays which are generated by the Macintosh system software include the window frames, moving animation, and the redisplay of those portions of the screen exposed by a window which has been moved. The visual displays which are generated by the Microsoft Excel application program are the contents of the windows. Capps Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4 and Exh. 1.

The issue of which visual displays are generated by the Microsoft application programs and which by the Macintosh system software was raised earlier before Judge Schwarzer, in a slightly different context. In his March 20, 1989 Order, Judge Schwarzer declined to consider whether the visual displays in issue were generated by the Microsoft application programs or by the Macintosh system software. The point arose in connection with Microsoft's argument that the 1985 Agreement licensed to Microsoft all visual displays that could possibly be called up by running the five Microsoft application programs on the Macintosh system software then or in the future. 709 F. Supp. at 929. Judge Schwarzer concluded that Microsoft's contention would "defy common sense." Id.

Microsoft refers to the depositions of Albert Eisenstat, Apple's Senior Vice President, and John Sculley, Apple's President and CEO, in which these negotiators of the 1985 Agreement did not remember discussing the distinction between visual displays generated by the Microsoft application software code and those generated by the Macintosh system software code. Appendix to Microsoft's Reply to Apple's Response to Microsoft's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Furthermore, Microsoft contends that it would have been extremely difficult for the negotiators of the 1985 Agreement to determine which visual displays were attributable to which program codes because such information would require a detailed analysis of the images created by each software program.

Apple contends that: (1) the controversy which resulted in the 1985 license related entirely to Microsoft Windows Version 1.0; (2) Apple did not present any complaint formally or informally regarding any of the Microsoft application programs; and (3) Microsoft's Chairman Gates repeatedly explained that he sought confirmation of Microsoft's ownership of the visual displays *1451 in only those application programs that Microsoft created and owned. Apple's Response to Defendants' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment at 10.

Under California law, ambiguities in a written agreement are to be interpreted against the drafter, in this case, Microsoft. See S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Heston v. Farmers Ins. Group,   160 Cal. App. 3d 402 , 415, 206 Cal. Rptr. 585 (1984)); Interpetrol Bermuda Ltd. v. Kaiser Aluminum Int'l Corp., 719 F.2d 992, 998 (9th Cir.1983).

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has directed district courts to interpret copyright licenses narrowly, consistent with the federal copyright policy of providing incentives in the form of copyright protection to authors. See S.O.S. Payday, 886 F.2d at 1088 ("copyright licenses are assumed to prohibit any use not authorized"); Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851, 854 (9th Cir.1988). In S.O.S. v. Payday , the court concluded that a software developer's grant of a "right of use" of several software programs to a company which provided financial services to clients did not confer the right to copy and prepare a modified version of the software programs without the licensor's permission. The court concluded that the licensee had only acquired the right to possess copies of the software programs for purposes of producing a product for its clients, and, therefore, had exceeded the scope of its license. Similarly, the Cohen court construed a license of a copyrighted work narrowly. Cohen involved a license to record and copy a motion picture and exhibit it "by means of television," which was construed not to include the distribution of videocassettes for home viewing, VCRs for home use not having been invented at the time the license was executed.

In light of these rules of construction and the 1985 Agreement's purpose to resolve the dispute over ownership of visual displays in Windows Version 1.0, the court concludes that the 1985 Agreement did not license the visual displays which are generated by calls from the Microsoft application programs to the Macintosh operating system. The mere fact that the Macintosh system software was designed so that the Macintosh interface could be used in conjunction with a variety of application programs written for the Macintosh computer, [10] should not open the door to a construction at odds with usual principles of contract law and the agreement's evident purpose. It would be astonishing if Apple had licensed those visual displays which had won for it great acclaim for aesthetic and intuitive appeal.

What Microsoft received in the 1985 Agreement was the right to continue to market its application programs written for the Macintosh and to use the visual displays generated by those application programs (not the visual displays generated by calls by the application programs to the Macintosh operating system) in present and future programs.

Although seven of the ten remaining visual displays from Apple's List (A1, A8, B1, B2, D1, D2, and D3) do appear on the screen when the Microsoft Excel application program runs in conjunction with the Macintosh operating system, each of those seven visual displays owes its appearance to the Macintosh operating system. Capps Supp. Declaration. Therefore, those seven visual displays are not licensed under the 1985 Agreement. Microsoft's motion for summary adjudication that these displays are covered by virtue of being in the 1985 version of Microsoft Excel is, therefore, denied.

As to the scope of the 1985 Agreement, HP contends that eleven of the fifty visual displays in Apple's List are covered by the 1985 Agreement and, therefore, are protected from Apple's claims of copyright infringement. These visual displays are: I3, I5, I10, I11, I12, F18, F19, G10, G19, G20, and G22.

*1452 A determination of the legal significance of undisputed historical facts, such as the visual displays in Windows Version 1.0 and NewWave, involves a mixed question of fact and law normally decided by the court and, therefore, appropriate for summary judgment. See Cohen, 845 F.2d at 853, 855 (reversal of summary judgment in favor of licensee).

As a preliminary matter, HP's motion for summary adjudication rests on the assumptions that the 1985 Agreement granted Microsoft the right to use and license to third parties visual displays in Windows Version 1.0 and that HP is entitled to use those visual displays by virtue of a license from Microsoft to HP. The first assumption is plainly justified by Section 2A of the 1985 Agreement. Strangely, the second assumption is questionable. HP has not established the terms of the Microsoft-HP license. Absent such an agreement, HP has no right to rely on the 1985 Agreement between Microsoft and Apple as a defense to copyright infringement. Because the parties proceeded with two summary judgment motions without clarifying this issue and there are letters referring to a license between Microsoft and HP, [11] the court can only assume that Microsoft did license the use of visual displays in Windows Version 1.0 to HP. The court is confident that the lawyers for these parties will be heard from if this is not the case and shall thus address the merits of HP'S motion.

After reviewing the videotape exhibits submitted on this issue and comparing the appearance of these eleven visual displays in Apple's programs and in Microsoft Windows Version 1.0, the court drew the following conclusions.

Items I3, I5, I12, F18, F19, and G22 on Apple's List are all present in Windows Version 1.0 and hence are covered by the 1985 License.

Item I10 is licensed insofar as Windows Version 1.0 contains a "Select All" item in the Edit pull-down menu which allows the user to select all text in the window and display that text in reverse video. To the extent that the Windows Version 1.0 "Select All" item does not permit selection by reverse video of any icons, the "Select All" item is not licensed.

Item I11, a menu called "View" which presents the user with a number of menu items allowing the user to choose the folder's window display as icons or as a tabular list by name, type, or modification date, is licensed except insofar as Windows Version 1.0's "View" pull-down menu does not offer the user the option to display a folder's contents as icons in the window.

Item G19, selection of an icon by changing both the icon and its name into reverse video, is not licensed because in Windows Version 1.0 only disk drive icons and their names, which are not aligned directly below, can be selected by reverse video. The appearance of selecting only disk drive icons by reverse video in Windows Version 1.0 is significantly different from the selection of the variety of icons in the Macintosh and NewWave programs.

Items G10 and G20 do not appear to be licensed, but the association of different icon images with different types of objects and the use of a mouse to move icons around on a screen appear to be ideas. For purposes of the current motion, the court finds only that items G10 and G20 are not covered by the 1985 Agreement. The idea/expression distinction is properly raised in connection with the issue of substantial similarity, which is not presently before the court.

Therefore, the court concludes that items I3, I5, I12, F18, F19, and G22 on Apple's List are licensed to Microsoft pursuant to the 1985 Agreement and, assuming that Microsoft licensed the use of these visual displays to HP, are protected from Apple's claim of copyright infringement.

The following items on Apple's List are unlicensed and pertain to NewWave: A1, A8, B1, B2, D1-3, G1, G2, G4, G5, G6, G10-33, H1-6, I1, I2, I4, I6-11, J8-11 (55 items total).

Apple's motion seeks summary adjudication declaring Apple's audiovisual copyrights valid and dismissing defendants' affirmative defenses. Following lengthy consideration, the court has concluded that the present record is insufficient to conclude that there are no triable issues of fact as to these matters, with two exceptions: (1) HP's claim of Apple's fraud on the Copyright Office, and (2) the originality of Apple's visual displays.

To prevail on a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must establish both ownership of a valid copyright and copying by the defendant. Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc., 862 F.2d 204, 206 (9th Cir.1988); Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prod., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir.1977); Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Elec. Corp., 672 F.2d 607, 614 (7th Cir. 1982); see M. Nimmer, 3 THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT § 13.01 (1990). Because direct evidence of copying is rare, copying may be established by circumstantial evidence of access and substantial similarity of ideas and the expression between the copyrighted work and the alleged infringing work. Data East, 862 F.2d at 206.

Apple seeks partial summary judgment on the first issue the validity of its copyrights on the Lisa and Macintosh programs and also asks the court to strike the defendants' affirmative defenses. [12] In support of its motion, Apple refers to the transcript of the April 14, 1989 Status Conference, at 13-14, in which counsel for Microsoft and HP stipulated to the presumptively valid copyright registration of Apple's works in issue. Apple's complaint listed the allegedly infringed works and the copyright registration numbers. In Microsoft's answer, Microsoft admitted that Apple received the certificates of registration for the works in suit. Microsoft's Answer, ¶ 10.

A certificate of registration from the Copyright Office constitutes "prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate." 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). [13] This presumption of validity is rebuttable. Durham Indus., Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 908 (2d Cir.1980) (evidence in the record casting doubt on validity rebuts presumption); Past Pluto Prod. Corp. v. Dana,   627 F. Supp. 1435 (S.D.N.Y.1986). The presumptive validity of a certificate of registration may be resolved on summary judgment. S.O.S. v. Payday, 886 F.2d at 1086 (citing Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd., 808 F.2d 1316, 1322 (9th Cir.1986)). Furthermore, the presumption of copyright validity may not be overcome on the basis of fraud without proof that omissions in copyright application were intentional. Eckes v. *1454 Card Prices Update, 736 F.2d 859 (2d Cir. 1984). HP opposes Apple's motion seeking a determination of validity of Apple's certificates on two grounds: fraud on the Copyright Office and lack of originality. [14]

HP contends that Apple's failure to disclose to the Copyright Office that its works were based upon preexisting works should overcome the presumption of validity of Apple's copyright registrations. HP has provided the court with depositions and computer magazine articles showing that the Apple Lisa/Macintosh graphic user interface was strongly influenced by the Xerox programs, Smalltalk and Star. While it is undisputed that the Lisa and Macintosh designers were influenced by Xerox's Smalltalk program, which used a mouse and overlapping windows, and by Xerox's Star workstation, which extensively used icons, such borrowing of ideas does not deprive Apple's works of their presumption of copyright validity. To require a designer of a computer graphic user interface to acknowledge sources of artistic influence would be similar to expecting Roy Lichtenstein to declare in a copyright registration that a particular work is derivative of a named comic strip. HP's contention that Apple's failure to disclose the borrowed Xerox material is in itself adequate to overcome the presumption of validity is unsupported by any binding precedent. Furthermore, "[a]bsent intent to defraud and prejudice, inaccuracies in copyright registration do not bar actions for infringement." Harris v. Emus Records Corp., 734 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir.1984). HP has not provided the court with any evidence of Apple's intent to deceive the Copyright Office and nevertheless claims that "a triable issue of fact as to Apple's intent remains, and summary judgment cannot be granted to Apple on the record now before the Court." HP's Opposition to Apple's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 15-16.

The parties have recently sent letter briefs to the court regarding the December 11, 1990 decision and order in Ashton-Tate Corp. v. Fox Software, Inc.,   760 F. Supp. 831 (C.D.Cal.1990). HP relied on the legal conclusion that Ashton-Tate's failure to disclose that its programs were derived from a computer software program in the public domain invalidated Ashton-Tate's copyrights on its dBase line of computer software programs. [15] This court finds the two-page Ashton-Tate decision unhelpful to the resolution of the pending motions.

HP's contention that Apple's copyrighted works are derivative works is meritless. A derivative work is one which is substantially copied from a prior work. Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied 470 U.S. 1052, 105 S. Ct. 1753, 84 L. Ed. 2d 817 (1985). The Ninth Circuit has stated that a work will be deemed a derivative work "only if it would be considered an infringing work if the material which it has derived from a prior work had been taken without the consent of a copyright proprietor of such prior work." Id. at 1357 (quoting from United States v. Taxe, 540 F.2d 961, 965 n. 2 (9th Cir.1976)). All works are derived to a certain degree from pre-existing works. A derivative work within the meaning of the copyright law, however, is one which substantially borrows the expression of ideas from an existing work. M. Nimmer, 1 THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT § 3.01 (1990). HP has provided no evidence demonstrating that Apple's works in suit could be considered to have infringed Xerox's copyrights or that Apple's works substantially borrowed expressions of ideas from Xerox's Smalltalk or Star programs.

The purpose of summary judgment is to pierce the pleadings and assess the proof to determine whether a genuine need for trial exists. Advisory Committee Note to 1963 Amendment of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). *1455 "[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,   477 U.S. 242 , 249, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Although inferences are to be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, where the moving party has carried its burden under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio,   475 U.S. 574 , 586, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986). Having reviewed the exhibits offered in connection with this issue, the court concludes there can be no triable issue that the Apple works in suit substantially borrowed expressions of ideas from Xerox's Smalltalk or Star programs.

Finding no evidentiary basis for HP's claim that Apple intended to commit a fraud on the Copyright Office and finding that the Apple visual displays are not derivative of the Xerox Star or Smalltalk programs, the court concludes that HP has failed to establish that Apple perpetrated a fraud on the Copyright Office.

HP disputes that Apple's copyrighted works were wholly original to Apple because those works are "at best derivative of the works of Xerox and others and more likely merely compilations of preexisting uncopyrightable material." HP's Opposition to Apple's Summary Judgment Motion, at 3.

The attacks of Microsoft and HP on the validity of Apple's copyrights on the basis of lack of originality misconstrue the copyright requirement of originality. The standard of originality required for copyrightability is minimal. See Atari Games Corp. v. Oman, 888 F.2d 878 (D.C.Cir.1989) (minimal degree of creativity required to support a copyright). To fulfill the originality requirement, a work need only be independently created by the author and embody a very modest amount of intellectual labor; novelty or uniqueness is not essential. Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n., 805 F.2d 663, 668 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied 480 U.S. 941, 107 S. Ct. 1593, 94 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1987); West Pub. Co. v. Mead Data Cent., Inc., 799 F.2d 1219, 1223 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 1070, 107 S. Ct. 962, 93 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1987). It has been said that the originality requirement is simply a prohibition of actual copying by the copyright holder. Atari Games Corp., 888 F.2d at 882; M. Kramer Mfg. v. Andrews, 783 F.2d 421, 437 (4th Cir.1986).

In Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Systems, 886 F.2d 1173 (9th Cir.1989), the court concluded that the existence of computer programs similar to plaintiff's program was insufficient to rebut the presumption of validity absent any evidence that plaintiff copied from the other programs. Similarly, although there is evidence that Apple's designers borrowed ideas from Xerox's Smalltalk and Star programs, there is no substantiation for the allegation that Apple copied protectible elements of expression from those programs. Indeed, photocopies of visual displays from the Smalltalk and Star programs within the parties' exhibits reveal scant similarity of expression between Xerox's and Apple's visual displays. HP's Documentary and Testimonial Evidence in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exh. 222, 227, 237, 264, 361.

There being no triable issue of fact regarding fraud on the Copyright Office or lack of originality of Apple's works in suit, Apple's motion for partial summary judgment that: (1) Apple did not perpetrate a fraud on the Copyright Office; and (2) Apple's works in suit fulfill the copyright requirement of originality, is granted. Apple's motion for summary adjudication that its copyrights are valid is denied without prejudice to renewal. Accordingly, HP's affirmative defense regarding fraud on the Copyright Office and both HP and Microsoft's affirmative defenses of lack of originality are dismissed from the case. HP and Microsoft's defenses to infringement, such as functionality, scope of protection, merger and scenes a faire doctrines remain in issue and would be appropriately discussed *1456 in connection with an adjudication regarding substantial similarity.

Microsoft and HP have asked the court for a determination that each of the remaining visual displays on Apple's List is not entitled to copyright protection because they are unprotectible ideas, scenes a faire, or expressions which are merged with or indispensable to the ideas they represent. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, it appears that the issue of merger of idea and expression can preclude a finding of substantial similarity, but has not been applied to the issue of the copyrightability of a work. NEC Corp. v. Intel Corp., 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1177, 1179 (N.D.Cal.1989); see Data East, 862 F.2d at 208; Frybarger v. Int'l Business Mach. Corp., 812 F.2d 525, 530 (9th Cir.1987); Sid & Marty Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1167-69; Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir.1971); see also M. Nimmer, 3 THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT § 13.03[B][3] (1990).

In Aliotti v. R. Dakin & Co., 831 F.2d 898 (9th Cir.1987), the Ninth Circuit incorporated the line of cases involving the merger and scenes a faire doctrines into the "analytical framework of the intrinsic test [the substantial similarity of expression test]." Id. at 901. Accordingly, such copyright doctrines, addressing the protectibility of elements of expression, are appropriately addressed in connection with the second half of the Krofft bifurcated test of substantial similarity of ideas and expressions.

Although the court did invite motions addressing the issue of "scope of protection" of Apple's copyrights and the merger doctrine has been applied in other circuits to preclude copyrightability of a particular work, the court must follow the law of the Ninth Circuit. Since the court did not invite motions regarding the issue of substantial similarity, a resolution whether the works in suit are not substantially similar because of the merger of idea and expression in Apple's visual displays is premature at this time. Unfortunately, a substantial portion of HP and Microsoft's moving papers are irrelevant to the disposition of the current motions.

Counsel are directed to contact the deputy clerk to schedule a status conference not less than 45 days from the date of this order. The court hereby imposes a full disclosure obligation on the parties. In advance of the status conference, therefore, the parties should meet and confer and, with respect to each claim and defense which the party asserts, disclose the following: (1) the location of all documents and other tangible evidence which the party has reason to believe pertain to each claim or defense without regard to the party's access to or control over the location; (2) the identity of each person believed to have knowledge of each claim or defense without regard to whether the person is aligned with the party and a brief narrative statement describing the party's belief as to the person's knowledge; and (3) an outline of the law applicable to each claim or defense. Based upon this exchange, the parties shall prepare a plan of discovery which shall be contained in a single joint status conference statement which must be filed not less than five days in advance of the status conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[1] This case deals only with the graphic elements or visual displays of the Macintosh user interface. The whole Macintosh user interface includes both its graphic elements or visual displays and the mouse technology which enables the user to point on these graphic elements and command some computer operation.

[2] Microsoft developed Multiplan, Chart and File under an earlier agreement with Apple.

[3] Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,   709 F. Supp. 925 , 717 F. Supp. 1428 (N.D.Cal.1989).

[4] The term "visual displays" comes from the 1985 Agreement. See Appendix to Microsoft's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgement, Exh. K.

[5] Apple's document entitled "Similarities between Apple's Copyrighted Audiovisual Works and Microsoft's Windows 2.03 and Hewlett-Packard's NewWave" shall hereinafter be referred to as "Apple's List."

[6] This holding did not affect the visual displays which Apple claimed are found only in NewWave. 717 F. Supp. at 1433 n. 8.

[7] Although HP correctly states that there are fifty visual displays on Apple's List which pertain only to NewWave, there are additional visual displays on Apple's List which refer to both NewWave and Windows 2.03.

[8] An evaluation of whether the "total concept and feel" of the works is substantially similar should occur after unprotectible elements of expression have been identified and excluded from consideration. See Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc., 862 F.2d 204, 208 (9th Cir.1988).

[9] Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,   717 F. Supp. 1428 (N.D.Cal.1989).

[10] By permitting application programs to call upon the Macintosh system software to generate visual displays, the Apple software developers simplified the task of writing application programs for the Macintosh computer.

[11] Sewell Declaration with Special Appendix, Exh. 39 and 40.

[12] Microsoft's affirmative defenses are: (1) Apple granted Microsoft a royalty-free license to use the visual displays in issue pursuant to the 1985 Agreement; (2) Apple is precluded by waiver or estoppel from any claims of ownership or infringement against Microsoft products; (3) Apple has failed to state a claim for contributory infringement; (4) Apple's visual displays are functional and hence barred from copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b); (5) Apple's visual displays are not original to Apple and are not entitled to copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a); (6) Apple's visual displays are common and ordinary expressions of unprotectible ideas and are not susceptible to copyright protection under the scenes a faire doctrine of copyright law; (7) no substantial similarity exists between Apple's visual displays and Microsoft's Windows 2.03 software product; and (8) Apple's claim of unfair competition is preempted by 17 U.S.C. § 301.

HP's affirmative defenses are: (1) Apple's visual displays are unprotectible ideas, indispensable expression, and/or non-original expression; (2) fraud on the Copyright Office; (3) Apple's visual displays are functional; and (4) Apple's works are entitled to a limited scope of copyright protection.

[13] Section 410(c) provides:

In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration made before or within five years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate. The evidentiary weight to be accorded the certificate of a registration made thereafter shall be within the discretion of the court.

[14] Microsoft also contests the originality of Apple's works.

[15] HP's assertion in its letter brief that it has not yet taken any discovery on the subject of Apple's inequitable intent does not preclude summary adjudication of that issue. HP has had ample time to conduct discovery on the issues of the originality and validity of Apple's copyrights on the works in suit, including intent to deceive the Copyright Office. Judge Schwarzer afforded HP that opportunity.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

Get free summaries of new Northern District of California U.S. Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Apple vs Microsoft Copyright Case Study

Do you want to explore ‘Apple vs Microsoft copyright case study’?

As tech enthusiasts, there is nothing more enticing than a gripping narrative that paints a picture of fierce competition and legal tussles.

One such saga that continues to captivate minds is the copyright lawsuit between two tech giants, Apple and Microsoft.

In the world of technology, the rivalry between the two software is legendary. Their battle isn’t just a case of corporate competition.

It has been an epic tale of innovation, strategy, and, crucially, intellectual property rights.

A prominent example of this contention manifested itself in the form of a groundbreaking lawsuit in the late 1980s and early 1990s – a lawsuit that still influences today’s discussions about copyright law in the world of software.

This blog will serve as a case study on the iconic two software copyright dispute, offering a fresh perspective on how these tech titans navigated the complexities of intellectual property rights .

Graphical User Interface in Apple and Microsoft

A Graphical User Interface (GUI) is a system of interactive visual components for computer software.

It includes windows, icons, buttons, and other graphical elements that allow users to interact with a device through graphical icons and audio indicators such as volume.

GUIs were a game-changer as they replaced the text-based interfaces with a visually intuitive one, making it easier for people to use computers.

Now, let’s dive into what GUIs look like in Apple and Microsoft systems:

Apple’s Graphical User Interface:

This software introduced one of the first commercially successful GUIs with the launch of the Macintosh in 1984.

This interface was revolutionary as it was designed around the WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointer) concept, making computers significantly more user-friendly.

Over the years, Apple’s macOS has continued to evolve while maintaining its commitment to a clean, minimalist aesthetic, intuitive design, and ease of use.

The GUI features a consistent and coherent design philosophy, with a dock at the bottom of the screen for applications, an easy-to-navigate file system, and seamless integration with other devices.

The interface is built around the concept of direct manipulation, using the pointing device to control on-screen objects and multi-touch gestures for added efficiency on devices like the MacBook.

Microsoft’s Graphical User Interface:

Microsoft introduced its GUI through the Windows operating system in 1985.

Early versions of Windows were an extension of MS-DOS but featured GUI elements such as windows, icons, and a mouse pointer for navigation.

The big breakthrough came with Windows 3.0, which solidified Microsoft’s place in the GUI domain.

Microsoft’s Windows GUI focuses on versatility and compatibility.

It boasts a taskbar at the bottom for quick access to open and pinned applications, a start menu for accessing applications and settings, and a file explorer that allows for easy navigation of files and folders.

In later versions, live tiles were introduced in the start menu to present real-time information from apps.

Microsoft’s GUI also supports a wide range of hardware and offers flexibility in terms of user customisation.

Both Apple and Microsoft have played instrumental roles in the evolution of GUIs.

Although they’ve approached their GUI designs with different philosophies, both have a common goal of making computing more accessible, efficient, and user-friendly.

They have continuously improved upon their GUIs to provide more intuitive, robust, and aesthetically pleasing user experiences.

Related Article: Copyright infringement cases in India

The copyright case between Apple and Microsoft, which commenced in the late 1980s, is an iconic event in the realm of technology and intellectual property law.

The dispute originated from the development of the graphical user interface (GUI) by both companies.

In 1984, Apple introduced the Macintosh, which featured a revolutionary GUI with a desktop metaphor, windows, icons, pull-down menus, and a mouse for navigation.

This was a significant shift from the text-based interfaces that dominated the computing industry.

In 1985, Microsoft released Windows 1.0, which also featured a GUI. Apple believed that Windows copied the “look and feel” of the Macintosh’s GUI, thus infringing on their copyrights.

The Lawsuit

In 1988, Apple Inc. filed a lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard, accusing them of copyright infringement Apple held on the Macintosh System Software.

Apple claimed that Microsoft’s Windows 2.03 and HP’s NewWave software infringed on their visual displays copyright, including the use of desktop and folder icons and the overall “look and feel” of the interface.

The Outcome

In 1992, the court ruled in Microsoft’s favor, stating that the majority of the features Apple claimed were infringed upon were not actually protected by their copyrights.

The ruling was based on a contract signed by Apple and Microsoft in 1985, allowing Microsoft to use certain Macintosh GUI elements for Windows 1.0 .

The court found that this agreement also applied to subsequent versions of Windows.

The court also noted that while individual elements of a GUI can be copyrighted, the overall “look and feel” could not be, as it constituted an idea or a functional principle, which cannot be copyrighted.

Significance

The Apple vs. Microsoft case has significantly impacted how copyright law is applied to software.

It has helped define the scope of copyright protection in the digital realm, clarifying that while specific interface elements can be copyrighted, the overall system or method of operation cannot be.

It is a landmark case in the history of intellectual property law, setting the stage for how ideas and expressions are distinguished in the technology sector.

This case is also a potent reminder of how legal agreements and precise language are of utmost importance in intellectual property matters, especially in fast-paced and constantly evolving sectors such as technology.

Related Article: Apple vs Samsung Copyright Case

The Apple vs Microsoft copyright case study stands as a testament to the complex and critical relationship between technology and intellectual property rights.

This historic lawsuit, reaching far beyond a mere corporate rivalry, established key precedents in copyright law for software, particularly for graphical user interfaces.

The court ruling emphasised that copyright protection extends to expressions, not ideas.

In the context of software, it clarified that while distinct elements of a GUI can be copyrighted, the overall system or method cannot, as it is a functional principle, an idea.

This differentiation between idea and expression has since played a crucial role in software-related legal disputes.

Moreover, this case emphasised the importance of precise contractual agreements in protecting intellectual property rights, reminding technology companies to delineate their agreements carefully and anticipate future innovations.

Are you scared of copyright and piracy issues? Book a demo with Bytescare’s experts to discuss the effective solutions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the apple vs. microsoft copyright case about.

The Apple vs. Microsoft copyright case was a legal dispute that began in 1988 when Apple sued Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard, claiming that they had violated visual display copyrights that Apple held on their Macintosh System Software.

Specifically, Apple alleged that Microsoft’s Windows 2.03 and HP’s NewWave software infringed on their rights by copying the “look and feel” of the Macintosh graphical user interface (GUI).

How did the court rule in the Apple vs. Microsoft copyright case?

In 1992, the court ruled in favor of Microsoft. The court found that most of the GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringed upon were not protected by their copyrights.

The ruling was based on an agreement signed between Apple and Microsoft in 1985, in which Apple allowed Microsoft to use certain GUI elements for Windows 1.0.

The court determined that this agreement also applied to later versions of Windows.

How did the Apple vs. Microsoft copyright case affect copyright law for software?

The case played a crucial role in defining the scope of copyright protection for software.

It established the principle that while individual elements of a GUI can be copyrighted, the overall “look and feel” or system cannot be, as it represents an idea or functional principle, which is not eligible for copyright protection.

This differentiation between idea and expression has been instrumental in subsequent software-related copyright dispute

Did the lawsuit affect the relationship between Apple and Microsoft?

The lawsuit didn’t significantly damage the long-term business relationship between Apple and Microsoft.

Despite being rivals, the two companies have engaged in numerous partnerships over the years.

Notably, in 1997, Microsoft invested in Apple, and Microsoft Office was announced for Mac, demonstrating that business needs often take precedence over past disputes.

What is the significance of the Apple vs. Microsoft copyright case today?

The significance of the Apple vs. Microsoft case extends beyond the tech industry.

It has set a crucial precedent for how copyright law applies to software, helping to shape the way we understand intellectual property rights in the digital age.

Furthermore, it highlights the importance of detailed contractual agreements in protecting intellectual property rights and illustrates the complex interplay between technological innovation and the law.

Further Reading

• Apple vs Samsung Copyright Case
• Louis Vuitton Copyright Case
• Apple Copyright Infringement - 6 Solutions
• Copyright vs Trademark vs Patent: Clearing the Distinctions
• Apple Anti-Piracy - Ultimate Guide on Apple
• Copyright Published vs Unpublished
• Intellectual Property Rights vs Copyright
• Copyright vs Design
• Fair Use Copyright - India vs US

About the Author

Vineet kumar.

Vineet is a serial entrepreneur who focuses on innovative technology ideas to make things efficient. He has been building technology solutions for 5+ years and provided innovative solutions in cyber security, content security, anti-piracy, leakage prevention, brand protection, and privacy protection.

Check latest articles from this author:

How to improve brand reputation – 10 best tips, how important is brand reputation management in seo – ultimate guide, how did target improve its brand reputation.

Why the DOJ’s case against Apple has everything to do with Microsoft in the ’90s

What goes around comes around..

By Allison Johnson , a reviewer with 10 years of experience writing about consumer tech. She has a special interest in mobile photography and telecom. Previously, she worked at DPReview.

Share this story

Inside the US Department of Justice’s 88-page antitrust complaint against Apple , there’s a cool reminder to the company: you’re here because we paved the way.

According to the DOJ, its antitrust case against Microsoft cleared the way for Apple — then teetering on bankruptcy — to launch its breakout success: the iPod. Decades and trillions of dollars later, Apple is in the hot seat. And because time is a flat circle, it’s facing an antitrust case built directly on that 1999 case against Microsoft.

To better understand the DOJ’s case against Apple, it helps to understand United States v. Microsoft . If you were a teen in the ’90s (or maybe not yet born — in which case, good for you), you may have missed this landmark antitrust case, but here’s the short version: Microsoft got nervous about the rise of the web and used its position as a monopoly to squash would-be competitors, most notably, Netscape.

The court’s findings of fact detail how Microsoft first tried to persuade Netscape not to build a web browser for Windows 95, then attempted to control the company by offering it a “special relationship.” When that failed, Microsoft turned to the “cut off its air supply” page of the playbook, giving Internet Explorer away for free with Windows and making deals / threats in order to exclude Netscape from important distribution channels through other manufacturers. If you’re keeping score at home, this is, in fact, illegal, courtesy of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The DOJ initially tried to break Microsoft up into two companies . That didn’t end up happening, but Microsoft walked away from the trial weakened and with a long list of “prohibited conduct” instructing the company to refrain from anticompetitive shenanigans in its dealings with OEMs and developers. Wired ’s recounting of the case from 2000 is a fascinating read on the whole thing.

In today’s case, the Department of Justice doesn’t merely imply that Apple benefited from the results of United States v. Microsoft; it comes right out and says it. Take section 26 of the complaint:

For example, the iPod did not achieve widespread adoption until Apple developed a crossplatform version of the iPod and iTunes for Microsoft’s Windows operating system, at the time the dominant operating system for personal computers. In the absence of the consent decree in United States v. Microsoft, it would have been more difficult for Apple to achieve this success and ultimately launch the iPhone.

It goes on to detail how iTunes initially only worked on Mac computers; after the consent decree, Apple developed a version for Windows, and the iPod started going gangbusters. The rest is... history? I’m not really sure Apple owes the DOJ a thank-you card for making the iPhone possible, but not having to deal with Microsoft’s bullying along the way didn’t hurt.

The case versus Microsoft also echoes throughout DOJ v. Apple with one adorably weird word: middleware. Microsoft’s control over middleware — software that allows other software to run on the operating system, like web browsers or media players — was at the heart of US v. Microsoft . The DOJ concluded that Microsoft used various bullying tactics to keep other companies from developing middleware that would compete with or draw developer attention away from its own platforms — threatening to stop cooperating with Intel when it tried developing platform-level software and undermining Java development, while dissuading its allies from working with Sun Microsystems. Real bad-guy stuff!

The DOJ invokes the M-word when it describes “super apps,” which it calls “a kind of middleware that can host apps, services, and experiences without requiring developers to use the iPhone’s APIs or code.” They really haven’t taken off in the US; the closest thing we have might be the Uber app, where you can request a ride, order dinner, and reserve an e-bike all in one place. But true super apps as they exist in other markets just aren’t a thing here, no doubt in part because Apple doesn’t allow them on iOS. The DOJ argues that this is because Apple sees them as a threat to its platform — and that Apple blocking them is a major impediment to innovation.

The complaint, as a whole, paints a picture of Apple in a similar moment to Microsoft at the height of its power. Microsoft saw the rise of the web coming and realized its dominance was threatened. The DOJ portrays Apple seeing a similar problem as the iPhone gained success: “Apple’s internal documents show that, soon after the iPhone’s introduction and notwithstanding its success, the company began to fear that disintermediation of its platform and the commoditization of the iPhone would threaten Apple’s substantial profits from iPhone sales and related revenue streams.”

“Disintermediation” of PCs is what Microsoft feared, and the DOJ alleges it’s what Apple fears for the iPhone. Microsoft was absolutely right to be afraid — and it seems Apple is, too.

Max might not be the one to watch after all

This is sonos’ next flagship soundbar, no xbox, no problem, chum king express, google pixel 9: all of the leaks and rumors so far.

More from this stream US v. Apple: everything you need to know

United states v. apple is pure nerd rage, how an artificial tooth monopoly put the doj’s blockbuster apple antitrust suit in new jersey, ‘even stronger’ than imagined: doj’s sweeping apple lawsuit draws expert praise, meet jonathan kanter, the man heading the antitrust charge against apple..

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

DealBook Newsletter

The Second Coming of the Microsoft Antitrust Battle?

Prosecutors compare their new fight against Apple to the seminal case against Windows in the 1990s.

By Michael J. de la Merced ,  Sarah Kessler and Ravi Mattu

Impeding innovation. Reducing consumer choice. Extending dominance to other markets.

These are accusations that the Justice Department leveled against a technology giant it accused of running an illegal monopoly. But they aren’t from this week’s antitrust lawsuit against Apple — they’re from the case the department brought against Microsoft in 1998.

The move against Apple is, along with the Justice Department’s 2020 lawsuit against Google over search, perhaps the most ambitious tech antitrust battle since the Clinton administration’s effort to open up Microsoft’s Windows operating system .

And federal prosecutors are explicitly connecting the Apple lawsuit to that earlier fight. “They’re really presenting this case as a successor to that: Microsoft 2.0,” said Gus Hurwitz, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.

But the comparison isn’t perfect. And it isn’t clear whether the Justice Department will be able to achieve here what it claims to have done by suing Microsoft.

The Justice Department sees a direct connection between the two cases. “Microsoft” appears 26 times in the Apple complaint. And prosecutors say Apple wouldn’t have achieved its current towering success had it not been for the government’s fight against Microsoft:

The iPod did not achieve widespread adoption until Apple developed a cross-platform version of the iPod and iTunes for Microsoft’s Windows operating system, at the time the dominant operating system for personal computers. In the absence of the consent decree in United States v. Microsoft, it would have been more difficult for Apple to achieve this success and ultimately launch the iPhone.

In the 1998 case, the Justice Department argued that Microsoft illicitly sought to protect its Windows software from competition like the Netscape Navigator browser and Apple’s QuickTime multimedia software.

This week, the agency said Apple was doing something similar, unlawfully restricting competition by denying rivals access to key iPhone features like its contactless payment chip. “Each step in Apple’s course of conduct built and reinforced the moat around its smartphone monopoly,” prosecutors wrote in Thursday’s lawsuit.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

LSD+ Case Briefs

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Read as much content as you want during your trial. Cancel any time and keep access for the full 14 days.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 35 F.3d 1435

Contributed by 🤖LSDBot🤖

Apple and Microsoft are fighting over who owns the rights to use certain parts of graphical interfaces on computer products.

The issue is a disagreement over whether Microsoft and HP infringed on Apple's copyright by using protected elements from their GUI in subsequent versions of their software products.

The legal conclusion of the court is that the district court's decision is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

LSD+ exclusive

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum

• Apple and Microsoft had a copyright dispute over the use of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) in their computer products.
• Apple licensed Microsoft for the use of Windows 1.0, but claimed that subsequent versions and HP's NewWave software infringed its copyright.
• The district court ruled that the license only covered visual displays in Windows 1.0, the similarities between protectable elements were minimal, and subsequent versions did not copy protectable elements from Apple's interface.
• Microsoft and HP cross-appeal the denial of their requests for attorney's fees.
• The Macintosh Finder was dismissed as a work in suit because the underlying copyright on the Lisa has not expired, but Apple can base claims on both the Finder and the Lisa.
• Hey! This is the holding for Pennoyer v. Neff. It probably isn't the holding for the brief you're looking at. Join LSD+ for full access.
• A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached to satisfy an unrelated claim, despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
• A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached as the basis for the suit (e.g., to quiet title), despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
• An individual is sued who is a resident of the state, or who has been served with process while physically located within the state.
• jurisdiction - Neff is neither a resident, nor was served while within the state. Service by publication may be valid for an
• proceeding, where the owner would be made aware of the suit due to their property being seized, but not for
• jurisdiction - the action was on the basis of a suit to receive payment owed, and did not relate directly to a property within the state.
• jurisdiction, as the Oregon property was not attached to the initial suit, but rather was added in after the suit happened - note that Neff did not even purchase the property until after the suit had concluded.
• Accordingly, the Oregon court did not have jurisdiction over the initial suit between Neff and his lawyer.
• Enforcement of a judgment without jurisdiction denies due process!
• Additionally, although judgments rendered by other states are entitled to full faith and credit, if that state did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment, it loses such entitlement.
• Short Summary
• Slide right/left for more/less details
• Full Case Text

. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur

Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, . Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua

Energize your law school studying with LSD+ for only $19 per month. Join over 40,000 applicants who have used LSD to crush admissions and empower yourself to crush 1L and beyond. With LSD+, you’ll get immediate access to many nice things including:

• Full-access to over 50,000 case briefs
• LSD’s DeepDive tool to read the case at different levels of summarization
• Highlight-to-define to get easy to understand definitions in real time as you study
• Social learning with LSD community case high points
• Instantly brief over 6,000,000 cases with LSD’s cutting edge AI briefing tool
• 14-day free trial
• Data download

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

Help us make lsd better.

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard, Inc. and Microsoft Corporation

Cornerstone research staff were retained by the defendants to coordinate the damage analyses in this closely watched proceeding..

Cornerstone Research staff were retained by the defendants to coordinate the damage analyses in this closely watched proceeding, commonly referred to as  Apple v. Microsoft . Central to the case was the uniqueness of the Macintosh Graphical User Interface. Cornerstone Research staff examined various issues relating to the values of the separate attributes of the Macintosh desktop metaphor. Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard ultimately prevailed.

Apply for the Analyst Position

For undergraduates and graduate students or degree holders: Please choose the appropriate link below if you are applying to roles based in the US or in the UK. Please note US based students will not be considered for UK job openings. We look forward to learning more about you!

Apply for the Associate Position

For M.B.A. and Ph.D. students or degree holders: Please choose the appropriate link below if you are applying to roles based in the US or in the UK. We look forward to learning more about you!

Apply for Corporate/ Administrative Positions

Cornerstone Research offers a variety of exciting corporate and administrative roles across our nine locations. View our open positions in the United States (US) or the United Kingdom (UK) by selecting the applicable country below. We look forward to learning more about you!

Privacy Overview