Talk:Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

message: Should the page be moved to reflect Apple Computer, Inc.'s name change to Apple, Inc. ? Dravick 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is old, but I agree with Squiggleslash. The title of the article is not to identify the companies involved, but is the name of the court case:  Metromoxie (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move page ?

message: Someone tell me if I am suffering from False Memory Syndrome...
Did not Microsoft (presumably at the behest of Apple's lawyers) put rather absurd notices in the press asking users of Windows to refrain from moving or resizing windows until the suit was settled?Moletrouser (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Users asked to restrict their use of Windows during lawsuit?

message: The PARC_(Company) article says:
The lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge ruled "that Xerox's complaints were inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons," although apocryphal revisionist history insists that Xerox simply waited too long to file suit, and the statute of limitations had expired. This was not actually true; the dismissal of Xerox' legal complaint was not based simply on late filings, but rather a lack of legal merit to Xerox' case as it was presented.[3]
Therefore the PARC_(Company) article is saying that this article is part of the "revisionist history". I don't know which article is correct, but it would be nice if they were consistent.
Hlovatt (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is inconsistent with PARC_(Company) article

message: The quoted section below was removed from the end of the "Impact" section of the article.   If one reads the article, expressions (like the Aqua GUI components) are covered under copyright and do get protection, so this is not an example of what's claimed in the removed quote.
"In recent years, Apple has resumed threats of litigation in this area. Before the release of the Aqua GUI for Mac OS X, Apple threatened litigation against a Windows skin named WinAqua which was meant to emulate Apple's GUI based on a Mac OS X beta release.Smith, Tony. "Windows skin site re-posts Mac OS X desktop theme: Modified WinAqua back after Apple legal threat", The Register, January 14, 2000 Similarly, Stardock released a desktop enhancement program for customizing the theme in Windows, named DesktopX, which had a theme that was similar to Aqua. Apple, however, demanded the company remove "anything that even remotely looks like Aqua."Lettice, John. "Apple rattles lawyers at DesktopX over Aqua", The Register, February 2, 2001"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.40.164 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact section - minor correction

message: Though interesting, the quoted section below was removed from the last paragraph of the Background section.  That the stock was "purchased as an investment and then later sold" has no relevancy.  Certainly it doesn't improve on the "legendariness" of the story.  Also the "story" referred to in the quote is not relevant, though still interesting.  Should be good here in the discussion tab.   There's already a link here in the discussion to a much fuller treatment of the Mac GUI thing, but for anyone interested in these details I'm linking it again here for reference:  http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html.
"(the story that Apple had given Xerox Board members stock in exchange for access to the research performed at PARC is a legend because the truth is that Xerox did, at one time, own stocks in Apple but they were purchased as an investment and sold later);Lee, Yvonne. Fact vs.Legend: Apple and Xerox Square Off in Suit, InfoWorld, January 1, 1990, pag. 8"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.40.164 (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Background section - minor excise

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.manolution.com/2011/06/microsoft-vs-apple-the-history-of-computing-infographic/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newmaconline.com/tech-giant-showdown-microsoft-vs-apple_2010-06-02/
*Added archive http://archive.is/20140622143332/http%3A%2F%2Fnews.cnet.com%2FMS%2Bto%2Binvest%2B150%2Bmillion%2Bin%2BApple%2F2100-1001_3-202143.html to http://news.cnet.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+Apple/2100-1001_3-202143.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090323220429/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/101/101.US.99.html to http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/101/101.US.99.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified