Would you want to owna product from a company that does buisness like this?

[StirCrazy]

actualy I was worng on the version number it was two not one..

"Without warning, Apple filed suit against Microsoft in federal court on March 17, 1988 for violating Apple's copyrights on the "visual displays" of the Macintosh. (Apple also filed suit against HP for its NewWave environment that ran on top of Windows 2.0.)
Apple's suit included 189 contested visual displays that Apple believed violated its copyright.
Microsoft countersued, but it failed to stem the bad publicity. Windows' development community was terrified that any court ordered changes to the software would render their products incompatible and make Windows undesirable to consumers. Borland's CEO said it was like "waking up and finding out that your partner might have AIDS."
Fortunately for Windows developers, Judge W. Schwarzer ruled on July 25, 1989, that 179 of the 189 disputed displays were covered by the existing license, and most of the other ten were not violations of Apple's copyright due to the merger doctrine (the merger doctrine stipulates that ideas cannot be copyrighted). In the case of Apple vs. Microsoft, many of the displays Apple contested were ideas and could not be protected by copyright.
The lawsuit was decided in Microsoft's favor on August 24, 1993."

certionaly looks like they launched a lawsuit against MS to me.

in fact if MS wounldn't have given money to Apple in 97, there might not be a apple. but like anything else... MS needs compatition or they are declaired a monopoly so it was in there best interest to keep Apple floating. just like the comercials they let apple run.

"The lawsuit single-handedly tainted Microsoft-Apple relations until 1997, when Microsoft pumped $100 million into Apple.
The 1985 agreement hurt Sculley almost as much as the judgment did. Mac users everywhere were shocked that the Apple CEO would give Microsoft unfettered access to the Macintosh interface in exchange for Excel and Word.
Apple appealed the ruling and made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case"


Steve

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

certionaly looks like they launched a lawsuit against MS to me.

I never said they didn't, I said the details you posted were incorrect.

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

in fact if MS wounldn't have given money to Apple in 97, there might not be a apple. but like anything else... MS needs compatition or they are declaired a monopoly so it was in there best interest to keep Apple floating. just like the comercials they let apple run.

That's a pretty common interpretation and a deeply flawed one. There is no way Microsoft could defend a charge of being a monopoly by highlighting Apple, they owned 100 Million in preferred stock! Pointing out that you own a big chunk of your strongest competition would NOT help.

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

"The lawsuit single-handedly tainted Microsoft-Apple relations until 1997, when Microsoft pumped $100 million into Apple.
The 1985 agreement hurt Sculley almost as much as the judgment did. Mac users everywhere were shocked that the Apple CEO would give Microsoft unfettered access to the Macintosh interface in exchange for Excel and Word.
Apple appealed the ruling and made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case"

I'd respectfully suggest you link to wikipedia entries in the future rather than do the copy / paste thing, even if you do use quotes. The only obvious indication of the transition is the lack of spelling mistakes.

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

Id respectfully suggest you link to wikipedia entries in the future rather than do the copy / paste thing, even if you do use quotes. The only obvious indication of the transition is the lack of spelling mistakes.

wasn't wicipedia, cant trust nothing you read on that site. it was actualy off an apple site.

Steve

[Ron99]

As I see it the various lawsuits etc. had little to do with the near death of Apple. Ironically, I think it was a relative lack of innovation and expensive mediocre products due to the succession of bean counter CEOs (John Sculley, Michael Spindler, Gil Amelio) that almost killed Apple. While there were a few inspired products during that period (the first Powerbooks were fairly innovative in the laptop world) it was nothing like what we see now. It was the return of Steve Jobs and a renewed focus on innovation, great industrial design and ease of use that brought Apple back. Dealings with Microsoft etc. were interesting side stories.

[Delphinus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3irf4IAv9U

[Slick Fork]

Vital Ipad Comparisons!

http://wwww.9gag.com/photo/17815_full.jpg

http://www.sammyliu.com/wp-content/u.../01/t8ki7o.jpg