4 ms·
Yeah the linked post is nonsense. Apple's "Look and Feel" lawsuits had failed by then, and it was clear there was no way Microsoft would succeed. As you say, t
by nl 4y ago
Yeah the linked post is nonsense.
Apple's "Look and Feel" lawsuits had failed by then, and it was clear there was no way Microsoft would succeed. As you say, they were only pursuing exact copies.
The real problem was the KDE/Gnome split.
KDE came first (1996), but used the non-free Qt. Gnome was started (1997) to be entirely free, and so developers split like that.
Subsequent splits were for a bunch of reasons, but none were really related to MS threats.
- lproven 4y agoIt's not nonsense; I wrote it, and I provided citations, and I've posted more upthread here. I wrote it because it was 15 years ago now and everyone is forgetting about it now.
- nl 4y agoI was there too - hell I was using newsgroups when Miguel posted his Gnome post. And I'd note Miguel says the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32258035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32258035 Just because The Register was posting something it didn't make it true then, and still isn't. The Register always posted random anti-MS scapegoating articles, and it was nonsense then and remains nonsense now. The article you post at the end of the linked article is typical ignorant nonsense. Patents don't cover visual appearance - Design Patents can, but they are very specific and MS didn't have them. So it's both ignorant of IP law, and of the history of the projects.