5 ms·

from the actual lawsuit, it is more about corel creating a "Microsoft word mode" to mimic the UI/style of MS Word. this slider is just part of it. http://blog

by sergers 11y ago

from the actual lawsuit, it is more about corel creating a "Microsoft word mode" to mimic the UI/style of MS Word. this slider is just part of it. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2006/11/21/licensing-the-2007-microsoft-office-user-interface.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2006/11/21/licensing... edit: fixed link, thank commenter below for identifying error

cfqycwz 11y ago
Your link appears to be missing a hyphen--the post is available at http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2006/11/21/licensing-the-2007-microsoft-office-user-interface.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2006/11/21/licensing...
nivla 11y ago
Keeping aside the stupidity of the patent, it does seems like Coral made their Wordperfect look a lot similar to Microsoft Word.[1][2] [1] http://www.wordperfect.com/static/img/content/products/wp_ho/lp/ui.jpg http://www.wordperfect.com/static/img/content/products/wp_ho... [2] http://www.wordperfect.com/us/product/corel-office-software/ http://www.wordperfect.com/us/product/corel-office-software/
- tstrimple 11y ago
  The Corel tools literally have a "Microsoft <product> mode" which changes the UI to look almost identical to the equivalent Microsoft product. They aren't hiding the fact that the design is taken from Microsoft. Take a look at the screenshots from the complaint and if you hide the name title bar, you'll have a hard time picking out which one is from Microsoft and which is from Corel. https://www.eff.org/files/2015/12/28/microsoft_v_corel_-_complaint.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2015/12/28/microsoft_v_corel_-_com...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    Design patents cannot cover functional aspects, and mimicking another product for usability (not aesthetics) sounds pretty darn functional to me. Especially in the realm of word processors where there's such a lopsided market.
    - throwawaykf05 11y ago
      And the lawsuit is all about copying the aesthetics, not the functional aspects. In UIs, usability is more about the aesthetics, since it is all about the best way of presenting the underlying functionality, not the functionality itself. I cannot think of a valid reason why a product should be able to free-ride on the popularity of its competitor. Just because a "market is lopsided" does not seem like it.
      - Falkon1313 11y ago
        Because OS companies like Microsoft and Apple set standards for how applications built for their OS should look-and-feel, and tell developers to make them consistent?
        throwawaykf05 11y ago
        That may actually make a convincing legal argument. I believe the appropriate doctrine would be "estoppel".
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        What I was trying to say is that maybe Corel could argue that they can't be infringing a design patent for copying what MS calls aesthetic, when it's actually functional. In other words, they would say they were copying necessary functional aspects for user interoperability, so those aspects cannot be claimed to be aesthetic and covered by a design patent.
Falkon1313 11y ago
Interesting link. One of the core ideas behind Windows' success back in the day (when almost every program implemented its own unique GUI system and they were very inconsistent) was that it provided reusable UI components and Microsoft said that all developers should use their standard design, GUI components, and keyboard shortcuts to provide consistent interfaces for Windows programs. Seems rather hostile that Microsoft would now be suing someone for doing exactly what they always told everyone to do (especially considering that other developers using their UIs is a significant part of what made Microsoft itself so successful). I guess the fact that they made it available to anyone not directly competing with their office suite is something. But the whole "Do what I tell you to do!" "Ok, I will." "Now you're in trouble for doing that!" routine still seems obnoxious.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Aren't they taking a page from Apple's playbook here? "You can do mostly whatever, as long as you don't duplicate functionality of our existing - or planned applications; in the latter case we'll retroactively pull you from the market."

by sergers 11y ago

cfqycwz 11y ago

Your link appears to be missing a hyphen--the post is available at http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2006/11/21/licensing-the-2007-microsoft-office-user-interface.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2006/11/21/licensing...

nivla 11y ago

Keeping aside the stupidity of the patent, it does seems like Coral made their Wordperfect look a lot similar to Microsoft Word.[1][2] [1] http://www.wordperfect.com/static/img/content/products/wp_ho/lp/ui.jpg http://www.wordperfect.com/static/img/content/products/wp_ho... [2] http://www.wordperfect.com/us/product/corel-office-software/ http://www.wordperfect.com/us/product/corel-office-software/

tstrimple 11y ago
The Corel tools literally have a "Microsoft <product> mode" which changes the UI to look almost identical to the equivalent Microsoft product. They aren't hiding the fact that the design is taken from Microsoft. Take a look at the screenshots from the complaint and if you hide the name title bar, you'll have a hard time picking out which one is from Microsoft and which is from Corel. https://www.eff.org/files/2015/12/28/microsoft_v_corel_-_complaint.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2015/12/28/microsoft_v_corel_-_com...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Design patents cannot cover functional aspects, and mimicking another product for usability (not aesthetics) sounds pretty darn functional to me. Especially in the realm of word processors where there's such a lopsided market.
  - throwawaykf05 11y ago
    And the lawsuit is all about copying the aesthetics, not the functional aspects. In UIs, usability is more about the aesthetics, since it is all about the best way of presenting the underlying functionality, not the functionality itself. I cannot think of a valid reason why a product should be able to free-ride on the popularity of its competitor. Just because a "market is lopsided" does not seem like it.
    - Falkon1313 11y ago
      Because OS companies like Microsoft and Apple set standards for how applications built for their OS should look-and-feel, and tell developers to make them consistent?
      - throwawaykf05 11y ago
        That may actually make a convincing legal argument. I believe the appropriate doctrine would be "estoppel".
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      What I was trying to say is that maybe Corel could argue that they can't be infringing a design patent for copying what MS calls aesthetic, when it's actually functional. In other words, they would say they were copying necessary functional aspects for user interoperability, so those aspects cannot be claimed to be aesthetic and covered by a design patent.

Falkon1313 11y ago

Interesting link. One of the core ideas behind Windows' success back in the day (when almost every program implemented its own unique GUI system and they were very inconsistent) was that it provided reusable UI components and Microsoft said that all developers should use their standard design, GUI components, and keyboard shortcuts to provide consistent interfaces for Windows programs. Seems rather hostile that Microsoft would now be suing someone for doing exactly what they always told everyone to do (especially considering that other developers using their UIs is a significant part of what made Microsoft itself so successful). I guess the fact that they made it available to anyone not directly competing with their office suite is something. But the whole "Do what I tell you to do!" "Ok, I will." "Now you're in trouble for doing that!" routine still seems obnoxious.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Aren't they taking a page from Apple's playbook here? "You can do mostly whatever, as long as you don't duplicate functionality of our existing - or planned applications; in the latter case we'll retroactively pull you from the market."