On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Zankan Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > #1 - xerox case is copyright, Samsung case is patent
You are dodging the fact that, in those years, there were no software patents. I can't help but grant that things are muddied over this, but to claim this is a cut and dried difference seems disingenuous. Had Xerox known it could "license" their "ideas" than I'm sure they would have preferred to do that. Of course, I am curious how the courts could, in 1994 decide that "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]..." while in 2012 we seem to be allowing them other metaphors with patent protection. (Quote from quote in wikipedia article.) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
