This is the last public response to this, if you want to continue by
email that's fine, but I don't think the list really cares. :)
Your comment was that the L&F lawsuits of the 80's were lost.
That's because they were about using 'ideas' from other peoples
OS's in your own. Like apple saying that Microsoft stole this idea
from our UI and used it in their own so they should pay us money.
This is very different from saying, 'Look, this company has created
somthing called the Windows L&F, it's as exact a copy as they can
make, and they even called it Windows'
One is very qualitative, and one is a very quantitative measurement.
../Martin
Moses DeJong wrote:
> Yes, it is. First Microsoft threatened Sun about the Windows LAF in
> swing. Then to "cover up" the first "mistake" Sun made the Mac LAF
> only work on MacOS so that they would not have to put up with peoples
> questions like "why can I use the Mac LAF on all systems but not the
> Windows LAF?". When swing was first getting written Sun promised that
> all LAFs would run on all platforms. This is one of the reasons people
> basked swing instead of all the other light components sets that were
> out there. Sun lied to all of us and now they want you to think it never
> happened.
>
> mo dejong
> dejong at cs.umn.edu
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Robert McConnell wrote:
>
> > Wait a minute! Didn't Microsoft argue and win the point in the Apple
> > case that Look and Feel cannot be copyrighted or otherwise subject to
> > proprietary limitations? Is this another case of the big bully wanting
> > to have his cake and eat it too?
> >
> > Bob McConnell
> > N2SPP
> >
> > At 06:55 PM 1/18/99 -0500, Martin Little wrote:
> > >Because they fear Microsoft will use it as an excuse?
> > >
> > >They know that Microsoft will sue them for infringing on their
> > >look and feel. Much the same as Apple would probably defend
> > >the Mac L&F if Sun had not put the same restriction on that
> > >Swing L&F.
> > >
> >
