Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., C-88-20149-VRW.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. C-88-20149-VRW.,C-88-20149-VRW. |
| Citation | 759 F. Supp. 1444 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | APPLE COMPUTER, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and Hewlett Packard Company, a California corporation, Defendants. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
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, Brown & Enersen, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Hewlett-Packard Co.
ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
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 interface1 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 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 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 items7 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Softketeers, Inc. v. Regal W. Corp.
...Copyright Office.” Kaseberg v. Conaco, LLC, 360 F.Supp.3d 1026, 1036 (S.D. Cal. 2018); see also Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 759 F.Supp. 1444, 1454, on reconsideration, 779 F.Supp. 133 (N.D. Cal. 1991), and aff'd, 35 F.3d 1435, and aff'd, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994). But Softke......
-
Kaseberg v. Conaco, LLC, Case No.: 15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)
...that intentional, material omissions may support a defense of fraud on the Copyright Office, see, e.g. , Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. , 759 F.Supp. 1444, 1454 (N.D. Cal.) (quoting Eckes v. Card Prices Update, 736 F.2d 859 (2d Cir. 1984) ), on reconsideration , 779 F.Supp. 133 (N.......
-
Edmark Indus. Sdn.Bhd. v. South Asia Int'L(H.K.), Civ.A. 1:98CV1530.
...evidence of intent to deceive. See Harris v. Emus Records Corp., 734 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir.1984); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 759 F.Supp. 1444, 1454 (N.D.Cal.1991). Azad has presented no such evidence or argument that Edmark intended to deceive the Azad next argues that the ......
-
Maljack Productions, Inc. v. Uav Corp.
...1031 (9th Cir.1992); Apple Computer, 725 F.2d at 523. The presumption can be resolved on summary judgment. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 759 F.Supp. 1444 (N.D.Cal.1991). To be copyrightable, a work must possess more than a de minimis degree of creativity; the work must possess "a......
-
It Walks Like a Duck, Talks Like a Duck, . . . but Is it a Duck? Making Sense of Substantial Similarity Law as it Applies to User Interfaces
...remainder is scheduled for trial. 23. Nimmer on Copyright, supra note 6, at § 13.03[F][1]-[6]. 24. Apple Computer v. Microsoft Corp., 759 F. Supp. 1444 (N.D. Cal. 25. Copying, in this context, refers to infringement of any of the exclusive rights that could be granted to a copyright owner, ......