> Considering what came after—specifically, Linux, and the philosophy it inspired—did we dodge a bullet in this case? No. Rather, I believe those questions wer

> Considering what came after—specifically, Linux, and the philosophy it inspired—did we dodge a bullet in this case? No. Rather, I believe those questions were for the most part resolved with UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. v. Berkeley Software Design, Inc and Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Phoenix Technologies showed that cleanroom reimplementation was beyond the reach of even IBM's lawyers. (Echos are still with us, as in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.) Plus, "and the philosophy it inspired"? Which philosophy is that? Stallman's "free software"? If so, then I'll point to this quote: > It also potentially could have threatened the creation of open-source software that came after the 1987 court decision, by implying that individual screens could be copyrighted. The GNU Manifesto was in March 1985, so precedes the case. This article also implies that free (or at least open source) software is not innovative, and primarily copies from non-free UIs.