Apple's claims of "look and feel" were absurd on their face as anyone comparing Windows 3 and MacOS can plainly see. I'm not going to engage you on this, becau

Apple's claims of "look and feel" were absurd on their face as anyone comparing Windows 3 and MacOS can plainly see. I'm not going to engage you on this, because I don't know what it has to do with anything I wrote. You seem to have just jumped on the idea that I'm trying to have some kind of stupid fanboy argument with you. I wasn't. I was trying to point out that your description omitted a relevant fact: saying "Nobody but Apple sued another company..." has a different interpretation when the actual basis of the suit is considered. Any an all existing licensing agreement were immaterial... The existing licensing agreement was why they sued in the first place and one of the main reasons the courts cited in the rulings. It can't possibly be immaterial: it's central to their case! You make it sound like they just came out of nowhere and claimed to own all GUIs or something, but the actual case revolved around the existing licensing agreement and the (then untested) claim that "look and feel" as a whole was subject to copyright. *...as the technology wasn't owned by Apple in the first place. That's what the courts found..." That's not what the court found, though! Yes, Apple lost the case (rightly), but it was on the basis that most of what they claimed was subject to the prior licensing agreement and that the broader "look and feel" wasn't copyright-able at all, by anybody. Not even Xerox.