Case 2 : Apple vs Microsoft

CASE 2 : Apple vs Microsoft


INTRODUCTION

Apple Computer Inc & Microsoft Corporation are two well known and major companies that are involved in the manufacturing of computers, desktops, laptops, and computer related accessories. These companies are exposed to legal boundaries and framework in their regions of operations. The patent laws have been developed to offer protection to the firms operating in the multimedia industry. However copyright infringement is also a risk that these firms are exposed to in the market.


BACKGROUND OF CASE

Apple Inc & Microsoft has been rivals in the industry for many years. Both of these companies have been involved in stiff competition for a long time. The management of these organizations has been focusing on bringing an innovative product that could possibly replace the intricate system of MS-DOS, and bring a product that was comparatively more user friendly than was the case with MS-DOS.
However, this was the point of origin of the rivalry which eventually resulted in the filing of a lawsuit, in the context of copyright infringement (Hoque, Walsh, Mirakaj & Bruckner, 2011).
Microsoft was able to develop Windows in 1985 as a user friendly system for managing different tasks at the desktop, which is related to the term Graphical User Interface (GUI). Apple has been able to bring in a similar system in the market one year prior to the development of Microsoft Windows. In 1997 Microsoft was able to launch a new version of Windows 2.0 which bore striking similarity to the GUI of Apple Macintosh. This situation gave rise to the filing of a case against Microsoft, on the grounds that the company has copied the “look & feel” of its GUI, and incorporated it into Windows (Landy & Mastrobattista, 2008).
An important thing to note here is that, Microsoft and Apple had a contract in which the latter has agreed to license some aspects of its GUI. The situation only became problematic when Apple perceived that the ability of Microsoft to produce a similar version of GUI can have a negative influence on the market share of Apple Inc (Landy & Mastrobattista, 2008).  Therefore the management of Apple proceeded with the lawsuit against Microsoft on the grounds that its intellectual property has been stolen which was a violation of the copyright laws.


COPYRIGHT LAWS

Intellectual property of a company is one of the elements that can provide it with a competitive edge over the rival firms. Government has devised laws and regulations to ensure that the intellectual property possesses by a particular organization is retained by it, and to minimize the occurrences of stolen ideas and creative initiatives of the firms (Halpen, Nard & Port, 2011).
Copyright laws are there to offer protection to the companies, but at the same time they have certain limitations as well. As evident from the case of Apple vs. Microsoft, the legal foundation on which the case was built proved to be unsuitable for such a claim (Overbeck & Belmas, 2012).
The basis of the claim held against Microsoft was that the ideas of GUI which originally belonged to Apple have been copied by the rival firm. This imitation of the original idea was the ground on which Apple filed a lawsuit against Microsoft.
The laws which constitute the copyright of software, multimedia and computer related operations and processes are different from the patent laws applicable for literature or other concrete expression of creativity as manifested in the Copyright Act of 1976 which is based on the notion that an “idea” can’t be possibly summated into the sphere of the violation of intellectual property (Schwabach, 2007).


POINTS OF CONSIDERATION

As noted earlier, the legal ground on which Apple claimed that Microsoft stole the “feel and look” of its GUI and incorporated it as a part of its Windows 2.0, and then in the next version of 3.0 was a direct violation of the patent laws.  
The basic rationale on which the case was initiated was that, Apple found it a violation of its copyright was that the features of Microsoft Windows were too similar to that of the GUI used by Apple in the Macintosh. Severson (1997) has stated that Apple has developed a list of 189 factors that Microsoft was violating in terms of protection of intellectual property.
An element of intellectual property that Apple failed to understand at the time of filing a case against its competitor was the case of Rachel v. Banana Repub., (1987) which offers a similar scenario. In this case the court has passed the ruling that
“If the plaintiff is arguing for the protection of the “total concept and feel” of the product, but the discrete elements that make up the whole are not individually copyrightable or protectable, then only virtually identical copying is barred” (Myers, 1995).
Considering this position, Apple had little chance of winning the case from the beginning


COURT RULING

The court involved in the Apple v. Microsoft (1989) case has reviewed the 189 factors that Apple claimed were similar to that of the features presented in Macintosh. The court’s decision was based on the Copyright Acts of 1976, the contract between the 2 parties prior to the launch of Windows 1.0, and the similarity between the GUI used by Windows and Macintosh.
The following dimensions of the case have been studied to formulate the final decision on the case:
Contract signed between Apple & Microsoft
Copyright Acts of 1976
Scope and limitations of the intellectual property laws
The nature of instances on which copyright case was based

The court was unable to find valid and solid evidence on the basis of which the GUI use in Windows could be perceived as a violation of the laws pertaining to the intellectual property in the software and computer industry.
One aspect of the case was that Apple and Microsoft had a contract, which allowed the latter to have access to and use the GUI of Macintosh, without any limitations of restriction it to Windows 1.0 version only (Myers, 1995).
Secondly the court was also unable to detect any proposition in the contract that could either clearly or vaguely provide a hint of such course of action.
The Copyright Acts of 1976 have provided with a clear understanding that what constitutes the domain of violation of intellectual property rights, and which features of similarity of intellectual property between two or more companies can’t be ruled as a part of patent owned by a singular business entity (Schwabach, 2007).
Another reason why Apple wasn’t able to have a legal victory over Microsoft was that the use GUI can’t be regarded as a technological advancement that can be possessed by a single proprietor or business entity in the long run. The court ruling could be a means of eliminating the possible monopoly in the market that was likely to emerge if Apple was able to gain patent rights and win the case against Microsoft (Scott, 2007).
Another aspect of the case which provided support to the position of Microsoft’s use of Graphical User Interface was that Apple had been making efforts to implement the intellectual property protection framework on the idea of GUI. The court found it impossible to declare the use of an idea by Microsoft as a violation of the patent (Landy & Mastrobattista, 2008).
Macintosh has been using icons to make the management of files and documents more user friendly. However, the application of the similar tool by Microsoft couldn’t be deemed as theft of creative endeavors of Apple. Microsoft was provided the permission to manufacturer Windows versions in present and coming years as well, with the consideration of keeping the manufacturing strictly in alignment with the contract that was originally signed between Apple and Microsoft (Apple v. Microsoft, 1989).
Apple also received the court ruling that was not in favor of the firm because in order to bring in user friendly GUI, there were limited ideas available to the computer manufacturers, thus the limitation could be regarded as a possible issue that could make it nearly impossible for other companies to implement GUI without merging it with the framework used by Apple Macintosh (Scott, 2007). Therefore the court was propelled to pass the judgment against Apple.   The use of visual displays and images could also be refrained from the copyright protections as there was no other available means to express similar ideas.
A similar situation has arisen in the case of Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp when the court in which the case was filed presented a decision indicating that those features in a software that are basic and essential for the regulation of its process can under no circumstances be deemed as falling under the sphere of intellectual property & copyright laws (Severson, 1997).
The conceptualization of the desktop metaphor in use of the GUI of Apple’s Macintosh was also evaluated by the court.  The Copyright Act of 1976 holds the legal framework which proposes the use of intellectual property rights, and when to refrain from the implementation of such laws. The claim of Apple that the desktop metaphor has been imitated by Microsoft seemed to become void when it is viewed in the context of originality.
The use of desktop metaphor has not been originally initiated by Apple in its Macintosh. The idea could be traced back to the companies such as Xerox & IBM who have been successfully relying on this idea to manage their products (Apple v. Microsoft, 1989). Since the idea didn’t originate in Apple, it couldn’t really file a claim of something that didn’t belong to its intellectual possession in the first place.
Based on the above mentioned rationales and technical aspects of the intellectual property, contractual agreement and copyright laws, the court was able to deliver the final ruling which stated that
“…similarities between both works were not great enough to warrant a breach of copyright” (Lai, 2000: p. 71).


CONCLUSION

Copyright laws are there to protect the misuse and theft of intellectual property of the businesses. However, there have been instances where the organizations have filed lawsuits on the basis of the less concrete version of intellectual property such as “feel and look” cases the implementation of copyright laws has been more complex. The case of Apple v Microsoft Corp has been one such instance in which the use of GUI has been regarded as a violation of Copyright Acts of 1976. However the court ruled against the claimant suggesting that GUI is an “idea” that can’t be bound by copyright laws, neither the incorporation of desktop metaphor could be restricted by the copyright infringement stance due to lack of originality.

REFRENCES



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts