4 ms·

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.wordperfe

by 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.

by nivla 11y ago

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.