Hubbry Logo
Look and feelLook and feelMain
Open search
Look and feel
Community hub
Look and feel
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Look and feel
Look and feel
Look and feel
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Picture showing 4 different types of look and feel applied in software Verto

In software design, the look and feel of a graphical user interface comprises aspects of its design, including elements such as colors, shapes, layout, and typefaces (the "look"), as well as the behavior of dynamic elements such as buttons, boxes, and menus (the "feel"). The term can also refer to aspects of a non-graphical user interface (such as a command-line interface), as well as to aspects of an API – mostly to parts of an API that are not related to its functional properties. The term is used in reference to both software and websites.[1][2]

Look and feel applies to other products. In documentation, for example, it refers to the graphical layout (document size, color, font, etc.) and the writing style. In the context of equipment, it refers to consistency in controls and displays across a product line.

Look and feel in operating system user interfaces serves two general purposes. First, it provides branding, helping to identify a set of products from one company. Second, it increases ease of use, since users will become familiar with how one product functions (looks, reads, etc.) and can translate their experience to other products with the same look and feel.

In widget toolkits

[edit]

Contrary to operating system user interfaces, for which look and feel is a part of the product identification, widget toolkits often allow users to specialize their application look and feel, by deriving the default look and feel of the toolkit, or by completely defining their own. This specialization can go from skinning (that only deals with the look, or visual appearance of the graphical control elements) to completely specializing the way the user interacts with the software (that is, the feel).

The definition of the look and feel to associate with the application is often done at initialization, but some Widget toolkits, such as the Swing widget toolkit that is part of the Java API, allow users to change the look and feel at runtime (see Pluggable look and feel).

Some examples of Widget toolkits that support setting a specialized look and feel are:

  • XUL (XML User Interface Language): The look and feel of the user interface can be specialized in a CSS file associated with the XUL definition files. Properties that can be specialized from the default are, for example, background or foreground colors of widgets, fonts, size of widgets, and so on.
  • Swing supports specializing the look and feel of widgets by deriving from the default, another existing one, creating one from scratch, or, beginning with J2SE 5.0, in an XML property file called synth (skinnable look and feel).

Lawsuits

[edit]

Some companies try to assert copyright of trade dress over their look and feel.

The Broderbund v. Unison (1986) case was an early software copyright case that attempted to apply U.S. copyright law to the look and feel presented by a software product.

In 1987 Lotus sued Paperback Software and Mosaic for copyright infringement, false and misleading advertising, and unfair competition over their low-cost clones of 1-2-3, VP Planner and Twin, and sued Borland over its Quattro spreadsheet.[3] Dealers reported that sales of the clones increased because of publicity from the lawsuit.[4]

In December 1989,[5] Xerox sued Apple over the Macintosh copyright.

Apple Computer was notable for its use of the term look and feel in reference to their Mac OS operating system. The firm tried, with some success, to block other software developers from creating software that had a similar look and feel. Apple argued that they had a copyright claim on the look and feel of their software, and even went so far as to sue Microsoft, alleging that the Windows operating system was illegally copying their look and feel.[6]

Although provoking a vehement reaction from some in the software community,[7] and causing Richard Stallman to form the League for Programming Freedom,[8] the expected landmark ruling never happened, as most of the issues were resolved based on a license that Apple had granted Microsoft for Windows 1.0. See: Apple v. Microsoft. The First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a copyright claim on the feel of a user interface in Lotus v. Borland.

More recent reactions

[edit]

In 2012 and 2014, Apple Inc. has filed lawsuits against competing manufacturers of smartphones and tablet computers, claiming that those manufacturers copied the look and feel of Apple's popular iPhone and iPad products.[6][9][10]

In APIs

[edit]

An API, which is an interface to software which provides some sort of functionality, can also have a certain look and feel. Different parts of an API (e.g. different classes or packages) are often linked by common syntactic and semantic conventions (e.g. by the same asynchronous execution model, or by the same way object attributes are accessed). These elements are rendered either explicitly (i.e. are part of the syntax of the API), or implicitly (i.e. are part of the semantics of the API).

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Look and feel

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Look and feel refers to the combined visual and interactive behaviors that define the of a software application, digital product, or interface, where "look" encompasses elements such as layout, colors, , and , while "feel" pertains to the responsiveness, navigation flow, and overall of interactions. This concept emerged prominently in the evolution of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) during the , influencing practices by emphasizing how perceptual and functional cues shape and efficiency. In , achieving an effective look and feel involves balancing aesthetic appeal with intuitive functionality to foster familiarity and reduce , often through iterative prototyping and user testing to align with target audience expectations. Notable controversies arose in the legal domain, particularly regarding protection, as courts grappled with distinguishing protectable expressive elements from unprotectable functional ones; for instance, U.S. rulings have generally rejected broad "look and feel" copyrights to avoid stifling , prioritizing ideas and methods over specific implementations. These debates, exemplified in software litigation, underscored tensions between incentives and competitive , leading to precedents that limit protection to non-functional, creative expressions rather than overall interface schemes.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Core Components

The term "look and feel" in the context of computer software refers to the overall external characteristics and presentation that embody originality and creativity, including the visual and interactive elements users perceive during operation. This encompasses the expressive aspects of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), such as display screens generated by the program, which distinguish one software product from another in terms of aesthetic and experiential qualities. Unlike functional elements like algorithms or command structures, look and feel focuses on non-utilitarian features that can potentially qualify for protection as works under laws like the U.S. Copyright Act. Core components of look and feel typically include screen layouts, the organization of windows and dialogs, color schemes, , and transitional animations that contribute to the program's distinctive appearance. For instance, the spatial arrangement of menus and buttons, as well as the stylistic rendering of interactive elements, form part of this expressive layer, provided they do not merge with necessary functional expressions unprotected by copyright due to doctrines like . These elements are evaluated for in infringement claims, where courts assess whether the defendant's interface copies the "total concept and feel" without replicating unprotected ideas or methods. Protection for look and feel has been contentious, with U.S. courts generally limiting to specific creative expressions while excluding the "feel" derived from user interaction sequences if they are dictated by efficiency or standard practices. Landmark cases, such as those involving early GUI disputes, established that while individual screen displays may be copyrightable, broader interface designs often fail to meet originality thresholds or succumb to merger with functional requirements. Empirical analysis of judicial outcomes reveals a pattern where visual receive narrower safeguards compared to textual or artistic works, emphasizing the need for demonstrable over mere imitation of common interface conventions.

Distinction from Functional Elements

In law, the concept of "look and feel" pertains exclusively to the expressive, non-utilitarian aspects of a , such as creative choices in visual layout, color palettes, and that convey aesthetic or artistic intent, while functional elements—those dictated by practical utility, efficiency, or standard industry practices—are ineligible for protection under the idea-expression dichotomy of 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). This statutory exclusion ensures that does not extend to ideas, procedures, systems, or methods of operation, preventing monopolization of functional innovations that could stifle and technological progress. Courts have consistently applied this principle to user interfaces, rejecting claims where alleged similarities arise from inevitable functional constraints rather than deliberate expressive . The functionality doctrine further refines this distinction by denying protection to interface elements essential to achieving a program's purpose or where limited alternative expressions exist, akin to the merger doctrine under which idea and expression coalesce into a single, unprotected form. For example, command sequences or data input mechanisms are deemed functional if they optimize user efficiency without admitting substantial creative variation, as these serve operational needs over ornamental ones. In contrast, protectable look and feel elements must demonstrate in their sensory presentation, such as the specific arrangement of non-essential graphical motifs that evoke a distinctive experiential gestalt without impeding . Judicial application of this boundary often involves extrinsic tests evaluating whether disputed features are "standard" or "inevitable" in the relevant field, drawing from evidence like expert testimony on alternative designs. In Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (1994), the Ninth Circuit held that shared interface components like overlapping windows and desktop metaphors were functional and commonplace, not infringing Apple's expressive , as they reflected industry-standard solutions for multitasking rather than unique artistry. Similarly, the merger doctrine has barred protection for user interfaces where functional imperatives limit expressive options, as seen in cases involving command hierarchies, underscoring that safeguards only the "total concept and feel" separable from underlying mechanics. This delineation promotes innovation by reserving functional emulation for uncopyrightable domains, often redirecting protection seekers to patents or for utilitarian designs.

Historical Evolution

Emergence in Early GUI Development

The foundational elements of what would later be conceptualized as the "look and feel" of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) first materialized in the experimental systems developed at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) during the early 1970s. The Xerox Alto, operational from March 1973, pioneered a bitmapped monochrome display, a three-button mouse for cursor control, overlapping resizable windows, and iconic representations of data objects, enabling users to interact visually rather than through text commands. This configuration introduced a consistent visual aesthetic—rectangular windows with title bars and borders—and behavioral uniformity, where mouse-driven actions like pointing, clicking, and dragging produced predictable on-screen responses across the bitmap-rendered environment, marking an initial shift toward intuitive, metaphor-based computing. PARC researchers, including and , integrated these features within environments like Smalltalk, an system that emphasized dynamic, live interfaces where visual elements behaved consistently as manipulable entities, reinforcing a cohesive interactive "feel" predicated on direct manipulation rather than abstracted syntax. The design philosophy prioritized learnability for non-experts, employing real-world analogies such as desktops for organization, which necessitated uniform visual cues (e.g., consistent iconography and proportional scaling) and responsive kinetics to simulate physical object handling, thereby embedding early principles of interface consistency that influenced subsequent GUI paradigms. By 1981, these innovations transitioned to commercial viability with the (officially the Xerox 8010 ), which standardized widget toolkits including scrollbars, checkboxes, and hierarchical menus, all rendered in a scheme with fixed interaction rules to ensure predictable behavior—such as menu activation via mouse-over and selection by click—across productivity applications like word processors and drawing tools. This system, priced at approximately $16,000 per workstation, demonstrated the practical value of a unified look and feel for , where visual harmony (e.g., aligned grids and proportional fonts) and behavioral reliability reduced , setting precedents for scalable GUI design before broader industry adoption. The paradigm gained momentum through , notably Apple's 1979 demonstration at PARC, which informed the Apple Lisa's GUI released on January 19, 1983, featuring color-capable bitmaps, pull-down menus, and a with draggable icons, all governed by consistent rules for selection and manipulation to evoke a familiar, office-like tactile experience. The subsequent Macintosh, launched January 24, 1984, refined this further with affordable hardware supporting 512x342 monochrome displays and system-wide adherence to interaction guidelines, such as double-clicking for object activation, cementing look and feel as an essential, non-functional attribute of GUI development focused on perceptual uniformity and ease of mastery.

Precedents Before 1980s Litigation

In the late 1970s, as computer software began to be recognized under copyright law as literary works, precedents specifically addressing elements remained scarce, with protections primarily extending to source and rather than interactive displays or input methods. The Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU), in its 1978 final report submitted to , advocated for eligibility of s but emphasized literal code expression over non-functional aspects like screens or formats, influencing the 1980 amendments to the Act that explicitly defined "computer program" as a set of instructions for a computer. This framework left interface components vulnerable, as courts had yet to grapple extensively with their expressive versus functional nature. The seminal pre-1980 case touching on software interface protection was Synercom Technology, Inc. v. University Computing Co., decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of in 1978. Synercom sued over alleged copying of input formats from its KL-1 software, which required users to enter data in specific mathematical equation-based sequences to perform load deflection analysis. The court granted against for the formats, ruling them as uncopyrightable "methods of operation" under the merger doctrine and Section 102(b) of the 1976 Copyright Act, which excludes ideas, processes, and functional systems from protection. While acknowledging that creative blank forms (e.g., standardized templates with expressive layout) could qualify for narrow protection akin to accounting ledgers, the formats here merged idea and expression due to their dictated functional utility, serving as the sole efficient means to invoke the program's calculations. This outcome highlighted early judicial caution against extending to interoperability-enabling elements, prioritizing competition in software markets over broad interface monopoly. No earlier reported federal cases directly litigated software user interfaces, as the first computer program copyright registrations dated to 1961 and pre-1976 disputes often invoked or doctrines instead. Analogous precedents from non-software contexts, such as Baker v. Selden (1879), reinforced limits on protecting functional systems through , influencing views that interface "rules" resembled uncopyrightable methods rather than pure expression. These sparse developments underscored a legal landscape ill-equipped for the graphical interfaces emerging in the early , setting the stage for later "look and feel" disputes by establishing that mere utility in user interaction precluded protection.

Apple v. Microsoft (1988–1995)

On March 17, 1988, Apple Computer, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company, alleging of the Macintosh (GUI). Apple claimed that 's and Hewlett-Packard's NewWave software unlawfully copied protected visual displays from the Macintosh, registered as audiovisual works, including elements such as overlapping windows, icons, and the . The suit contested 189 specific graphic displays, arguing they constituted the overall "look and feel" of the Macintosh interface. The dispute originated from a November 22, 1985, licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft, which permitted Microsoft to use and sublicense "visual displays" derived from Macintosh applications in Windows 1.0 and its derivative works. Apple contended that the agreement covered only the specific displays in Windows 1.0, not the broader Macintosh interface or subsequent versions like Windows 2.0, and did not extend to the cumulative aesthetic experience. Microsoft maintained that the license encompassed individual visual elements, allowing their incorporation into updated products without infringing Apple's copyrights. In district court proceedings under Judge William W. Schwarzer, partial was granted to defendants on July 25, 1989, ruling that 179 of the 189 contested elements were licensed under the 1985 agreement. For the remaining unlicensed elements, the court applied the abstraction-filtration-comparison , excluding unprotectable components such as functional ideas, merger-limited expressions, and scenes à faire—standard GUI conventions like pull-down menus and tiled icons prevalent in the industry. Protectable elements were limited to unique expressions, such as Hewlett-Packard's zooming rectangle animation, dimming folder icons, and a specific trash can design in NewWave; however, a in 1990 found no substantial in these, applying a "virtual identity" standard for the overall GUI due to its thin copyright protection as a utilitarian work. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision on August 24, 1994, in Apple Computer, Inc. v. Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, holding that the 1985 license broadly covered visual displays, enabling to transfer rights to individual elements in future iterations. The upheld the filtration of unprotectable elements and the virtual identity requirement for infringement claims on the whole interface, emphasizing that safeguards only specific, original expressions rather than the functional "look and feel" of software interfaces. The U.S. denied Apple's petition for on February 21, 1995, concluding the litigation. This outcome delineated narrow boundaries for in GUIs, prioritizing competition by deeming common interface tropes unprotected.

Lotus v. Borland and Menu Command Cases

In 1983, Lotus Development Corporation released , a program that achieved market dominance through its innovative command hierarchy, which organized functions via a system of slashes (/) followed by nested commands, such as /File Retrieve for loading spreadsheets. By the late , International sought to compete by releasing Quattro in 1987 and in 1990; the latter included a "Lotus Emulation" mode that replicated Lotus's tree and keystroke sequences to enable user compatibility with 1-2-3 macros and habits, without copying underlying source or . Lotus filed suit in 1990, alleging of its hierarchy as a key element of the program's . The U.S. District for the District of initially denied cross-motions for in March 1992, finding factual disputes over , but later granted partial to Lotus on July 31, 1992, ruling the copyrightable as expressive and Borland's emulation not fair use, leading to a permanent against the feature. On appeal, the First Circuit reversed in a , 1995 decision, holding the uncopyrightable as a "method of operation" under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), analogous to Baker v. Selden (1879), where a book's explanation of a method could not monopolize the method itself; the emphasized that users operate the program via the commands, prioritizing functionality and over expression. The affirmed without opinion on January 16, 1996, in a per curiam 4-4 split due to Justice Stevens's recusal, leaving the First Circuit's reasoning intact but without precedential weight beyond circuit courts. The decision distinguished menu commands from purely expressive elements, limiting copyright to literal code while excluding functional user interactions essential for operation, thereby narrowing "look and feel" protections to non-utilitarian aspects like visual rather than navigational structures. This outcome encouraged software compatibility but drew criticism for potentially underprotecting interface innovations, prompting reliance on patents or trade secrets for command systems; subsequent cases, such as Oracle v. (2021), echoed its functional exclusion for APIs, reinforcing that user-facing methods prioritize public access over monopoly.

Other Early Disputes Involving Widget Toolkits

In 1986, Apple Computer Inc. initiated legal action against Inc. (DRI) alleging that DRI's Graphics Environment Manager (), a graphical and released in 1984, infringed Apple's copyrights in the Macintosh user interface's audiovisual elements, including overlapping windows, pull-down menus, and desktop icons. provided developers with reusable GUI components such as buttons, scrollbars, and dialog boxes, which Apple claimed replicated the expressive look and feel of its Macintosh widgets without licensing. The dispute settled out of court in 1987, with DRI agreeing to pay Apple an undisclosed sum estimated in the millions and to release a revised version by November 15, 1987, that omitted contested features like resizable windows, disk drive icons, and proportional scrolling to avoid further infringement claims. This settlement effectively curtailed GEM's market viability as a competitive , as the modifications rendered it less intuitive and feature-complete compared to contemporaries, contributing to its commercial decline against alternatives like Microsoft's Windows. Apple's aggressive enforcement here, unlike the protracted , demonstrated early judicial and settlement pressures favoring limits on broad look-and-feel claims for functional UI components, though DRI's concessions validated Apple's partial success in protecting specific expressive elements. Concurrently, in March 1988, Apple expanded its look-and-feel offensive by suing alongside , targeting HP's NewWave software—a 1988 object-oriented shell and widget extension for Windows 2.03 that introduced enhanced desktop metaphors, cascading windows, and interactive icons. NewWave's toolkit elements, including folder icons and a trash can for , were accused of copying Macintosh's audiovisual displays, with Apple seeking injunctions and damages for unauthorized replication of widget behaviors and visual styles. The case consolidated with Apple's suit, proceeding to trial where U.S. District Judge Schwarzer ruled in 1992 that most elements were functional and unprotectable under copyright's merger and doctrines, though Apple prevailed narrowly on the trash can and certain folder icons as original expressions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in 1994, limiting Apple's win to those specific icons and emphasizing that widget toolkits' utilitarian aspects, like window management and menu hierarchies, could not be monopolized via copyright, influencing subsequent UI development by clarifying that interoperability-driven similarities in toolkits did not constitute infringement. These disputes underscored widget toolkits' vulnerability to look-and-feel claims but also their resilience, as courts prioritized functional necessity over aesthetic mimicry, paving the way for standardized GUI libraries in the 1990s. No other major early litigations solely centered on standalone widget toolkits emerged, as competitive pressures shifted toward licensing and standards bodies rather than courtroom battles.

Judicial Doctrines and Outcomes

Under the U.S. Act, audiovisual works encompass a series of related images intended for display via machines or electronic equipment, irrespective of the embodiment medium, and may include accompanying sounds. This category explicitly covers dynamic computer screen displays, such as graphical user interfaces (GUIs) in software, where sequences of visual elements like windows, icons, and animations constitute fixed, original expressions of authorship. Early registrations, including Apple's 1983-1985 filings for Macintosh GUI elements as audiovisual works, affirmed this scope, treating transitional screen displays as protectable against literal copying. Judicial application, however, rigorously limits such protection to exclude functional or idea-based components, applying the statutory idea-expression dichotomy under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), which bars for ideas, processes, or systems despite their embodiment in expressive forms. Courts dissect displays element-by-element, protecting only discrete, original artistic choices while deeming utilitarian arrangements—such as overlapping windows or menu hierarchies—as unprotectable methods of operation akin to uncopyrightable processes in Baker v. Selden (1879). This filtration prevents monopolization of interface functionality, as evidenced in Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (N.D. Cal. 1992), where the district court granted partial , ruling that Apple's copyrights did not extend to the "" or standard GUI conventions like movable, resizable windows, which served operational purposes rather than purely expressive ones. The merger doctrine further constrains protection: where an idea admits few alternative expressions, those expressions merge with the idea and remain unprotected to avoid effectively copyrighting the underlying concept. In GUI contexts, this invalidated claims over elements like es with inevitable layouts for data entry, as alternative designs would undermine ; the Apple court, for instance, held the attributes protectible solely for identifiable artwork or highly unique arrangements, not its core functional structure. Similarly, the doctrine excludes commonplace or genre-standard elements inevitably arising from the medium or external factors, such as basic icons or cursor behaviors prevalent in early environments. These limitations, rooted in pre-software precedents but adapted in 1980s-1990s rulings, ensured that audiovisual copyrights shielded narrow visual flourishes—like specific color schemes or transitional animations—without impeding in interface design. Post-Apple decisions reinforced these boundaries, emphasizing that even registered audiovisual works require proof of infringement via substantial similarity of protectible elements alone, post-filtration. For example, in disputes over widget toolkits, courts rejected broad "look and feel" claims, confining relief to verbatim replication of creative sequences rather than inspirational similarities. This doctrinal framework, balancing expression against innovation, has persisted, with no statutory expansion; as of 2024, U.S. Copyright Office guidelines continue to advise against registering functional UI aspects under audiovisual claims, prioritizing literal code or static graphics.

Rise of Trade Dress and Design Patent Alternatives

As courts increasingly curtailed copyright protection for the functional and idea-expressive elements of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) in the late 1980s and early 1990s, software developers turned to under Section 43(a) of the (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) as an alternative to safeguard the overall visual presentation of interfaces. , traditionally applied to product packaging and appearance, requires proof of non-functionality, inherent distinctiveness or secondary meaning, and likelihood of consumer confusion regarding source. Legal scholars argued that this framework could protect the "total image" of a GUI—encompassing screen layouts, color schemes, and icon arrangements—without encroaching on merger doctrines that limited to literal code or static images. The push for trade dress gained momentum post-Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (1988–1995), where Apple's claims largely failed, prompting commentary that law's focus on market harm from imitation offered a more tailored remedy for interface aesthetics. By the mid-1990s, firms began asserting in disputes over software visuals, such as in attempts to block cloning of desktop metaphors or widget sets, though success remained elusive due to judicial emphasis on functionality; elements like pull-down menus or overlapping windows were often deemed essential to software utility, ineligible for protection. One early effort involved a invoking for a sophisticated interface, but courts rejected it owing to users' technical expertise undermining secondary meaning. Empirical outcomes showed sparse litigation victories, with claims frequently dismissed on , as in web interface cases where overall "look and feel" blended functional necessities with minimal source identification. Parallel to trade dress, design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 rose as a viable mechanism for GUI elements, targeting purely ornamental aspects like icons, cursors, and display layouts ineligible for copyright's expressive threshold. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) initially resisted, but the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision in Ex parte Strijland (1992) affirmed that transient screen images constituted statutory "design" subject matter, provided claims focused on visual appearance rather than underlying code or functionality. This precedent catalyzed a surge in filings; by the late 1990s, the USPTO issued design patents for specific GUI components, such as menu hierarchies and button stylings, granting 14-year terms renewable via continuation practice. Unlike trade dress, design patents required no proof of market confusion, offering broader preemptive scope against substantial similarity, though limited to the precise ornamental features depicted in drawings. Companies leveraged this for defensive portfolios, with Apple's early iPhone-era applications (post-2007) building on 1990s foundations, though functionality challenges persisted in invalidity proceedings. These alternatives filled gaps left by copyright's audiovisual work limitations (17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(6)), which protected only dynamic displays without extending to static or idea-bound "feel," but neither fully resolved concerns; risked stifling standard adoption, while design patents demanded rigorous ornamentality proofs amid evolving hardware displays. By the 2000s, hybrid strategies emerged, combining design patents for discrete visuals with for holistic branding, though courts continued scrutinizing claims for disguised functionality, as evidenced by Federal Circuit rulings narrowing scope to non-utilitarian traits.

Post-1990s Reactions and Clarifications

Following the settlement of Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. in 1997, which resolved lingering claims from the 1994 Ninth Circuit decision limiting protection to specific expressive elements rather than the overall (GUI), courts and scholars reinforced doctrinal boundaries against expansive "look and feel" copyright claims. The abstraction-filtration-comparison test, articulated in Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. (1992) and widely adopted thereafter, systematically excluded functional interface structures, menus, and command sequences from copyright scope, leaving only narrow, non-utilitarian audiovisual expressions potentially protectable. This framework clarified that "look and feel" often merged protectable expression with unprotectable ideas or methods of operation, rendering broad claims untenable under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). Legal commentary post-1990s highlighted growing judicial skepticism toward such suits, as they frequently targeted utilitarian program behaviors ineligible for copyright; for instance, Pamela Samuelson observed that post-Altai rulings viewed "look and feel" assertions as attempts to safeguard functional aspects, which risked undermining copyright's foundational idea-expression dichotomy and compatibility in software ecosystems. This shift contributed to a marked decline in litigated look and feel disputes, with industry outcomes showing accelerated GUI convergence—such as widespread adoption of desktop metaphors—without widespread infringement findings, as developers prioritized interoperability over proprietary aesthetics. Empirical analyses of software markets indicated that thin copyright layers sufficed for literal code and static screens, while functional interfaces benefited from competitive imitation, aligning with economic incentives for innovation over perpetual exclusion. Trade dress alternatives under the faced parallel clarifications, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate non-functionality and secondary meaning, criteria rarely met for GUI elements. In v. Co. (2015 Federal Circuit), Apple's unregistered claims encompassing icon grids and layouts were vacated, as the court held that aggregated functional features—like rounded corners and grid arrangements—could not support indefinite monopoly absent evidence distinguishing them from superior engineering alternatives; the burden to articulate precise non-functional combinations further doomed vague overall "feel" assertions. Subsequent web interface cases echoed this, dismissing claims where similarities inhered in standard navigational paradigms rather than unique expression, reinforcing that and protect discrete designs (e.g., specific icons via separate registrations) but not holistic user experiences driven by efficiency. These developments prompted a pivot toward design patents for ornamental UI components, which offer 15-year terms but demand novelty over mere functionality; by 2020, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office data showed over 1,000 GUI-related design patents granted annually, yet courts invalidated those blurring into utility, as in post-Apple v. Samsung scrutiny. Commentators noted this regime balanced creator incentives with public access to interface conventions, averting the 1980s-1990s litigation chill that had deterred small developers from emulating proven paradigms. Overall, post-1990s prioritized causal functionality in user interactions—rooted in empirical interface studies showing learned behaviors transfer across systems—over aesthetic monopoly, enabling standards like those in /CSS frameworks to evolve without encumbrance.

Technical Applications

Role in Widget Toolkits and UI Frameworks

Widget toolkits, also known as GUI libraries, encapsulate the visual and interactive elements of user interfaces, directly implementing "look and feel" through predefined widgets such as buttons, sliders, and dialog boxes that share uniform rendering styles, color schemes, and response patterns. These toolkits abstract low-level graphics APIs, allowing developers to assemble interfaces with inherent consistency, which reduces cognitive load for users familiar with the platform's conventions. For example, toolkits like Qt and GTK enable theming systems where the look—encompassing fonts, spacing, and animations—and feel—governed by event handling and state transitions—are parameterized for customization while maintaining core behaviors. In practice, the role of look and feel in these toolkits manifests in two primary approaches: native integration and cross-platform emulation. Native-oriented toolkits, such as Java's (SWT), bind directly to operating system controls (e.g., Win32 on Windows or Cocoa on macOS) to inherit the host environment's precise visual metrics and haptic feedback equivalents, ensuring applications exhibit the expected platform-specific aesthetics like rounded corners on macOS or flat designs on Windows 11. Conversely, frameworks like Swing prioritize a vendor-agnostic look and feel via pluggable look-and-feel (PLAF) modules, rendering widgets through Java2D without OS dependencies, which yields identical appearances across , Windows, and macOS but may diverge from native norms. This separation allows for and portability but necessitates explicit theming to mitigate "look-and-feel mismatch" issues, where non-native visuals disrupt user expectations and compliance. UI frameworks extend this role by layering higher-level abstractions over widget toolkits, enforcing holistic design languages that propagate look and feel across entire applications or ecosystems. For instance, frameworks like Flutter or modern Electron-based systems bundle widget sets with material design principles—defining shadows, motion curves, and —to achieve cohesive experiences, often overriding toolkit defaults for brand-specific fidelity. Empirical outcomes from industry adoption show that standardized look and feel in toolkits correlates with faster development cycles; a 2023 analysis of desktop GUI projects noted that native-toolkit users reported 20-30% reduced UI debugging time due to inherited platform ergonomics. However, cross-platform toolkits' emulation of native feel has faced critique for subtle behavioral discrepancies, such as inconsistent scroll inertia, prompting ongoing refinements in rendering engines like those in or Skia.

Implications for APIs and Command Structures

The resolution of look and feel disputes has profoundly shaped the treatment of command structures under law, establishing that such elements are typically uncopyrightable as methods of operation. In Lotus Development Corp. v. International, Inc. (1995), the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that Borland's emulation of Lotus 1-2-3's menu command hierarchy—consisting of specific words, arrangement, and organization of over 400 commands—did not constitute infringement, as the hierarchy functioned as a utilitarian system enabling users to access spreadsheet features rather than an expressive work. The affirmed this decision by an equally divided 4-4 vote on January 17, 1996, preserving the exclusion of command hierarchies from protection to avoid monopolizing common user interfaces. This doctrine drew from foundational precedents like Baker v. Selden (1879), which differentiated copyrightable expression from uncopyrightable systems or processes, and rejected Lotus's argument that the hierarchy's particular selection and arrangement warranted protection akin to a compilation. In parallel, Apple v. Microsoft (1988–1997) illuminated boundaries for command-related elements within graphical user interfaces, where the Ninth Circuit affirmed that functional aspects of command invocation—such as overlapping windows and desktop metaphors—merged with their utilitarian purpose and thus escaped infringement claims, limiting Apple's suit to more distinctly expressive visual motifs like specific designs. The settlement on August 25, 1997, implicitly acknowledged these limits by focusing protections on audiovisual expression rather than operational sequences, reinforcing that command structures enabling predictable user navigation are ideas or procedures ineligible for . These rulings have direct bearing on APIs, which encode command structures at a programmatic level to facilitate software , mirroring the functional role of hierarchies in user-facing interfaces. Courts have extended the method-of-operation exclusion to API declaring code, viewing it as an uncopyrightable interface specification rather than creative expression, as articulated in analyses linking look and feel precedents to broader software functionality doctrines. In Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (2021), the , while resolving the dispute on grounds, noted a judicial consensus—rooted in cases like Lotus—that APIs promoting compatibility lie outside core concerns, thereby avoiding extension of protection to elements essential for industry-standard interactions. This framework has encouraged API replication for and compatibility, as evidenced by post-Lotus practices where developers freely adopted similar command paradigms without litigation risk, fostering ecosystem growth while reserving for non-functional code implementations. Overall, by prioritizing causal functionality over aesthetic similarity, these implications safeguard against overbroad IP claims that could stifle modular and third-party integration.

Influence on GUI Standardization

The rulings in major look-and-feel disputes, particularly Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (1988–1997), clarified that copyright does not extend to the functional ideas underlying graphical user interfaces (GUIs), such as the desktop metaphor, windowing systems, or overlapping resizable windows, thereby permitting competitors to adopt similar paradigms without infringement liability. The Ninth Circuit's 1994 decision emphasized analytic dissection of individual expressive elements over holistic "look and feel" assessments, rejecting Apple's claim for broad protection of its Macintosh interface against Windows 2.0 and subsequent versions, as these elements derived from prior art like Xerox PARC innovations and were deemed merger of idea and expression due to limited alternative designs for intuitive computing. This outcome, combined with the 1985 licensing agreement granting Microsoft rights to certain Macintosh visuals, enabled Windows to evolve toward functional parity with the Macintosh, fostering de facto convergence in core GUI conventions like the WIMP model (windows, icons, menus, pointing device). Such legal clarity reduced barriers to imitation, accelerating industry-wide adoption of standardized GUI motifs during the early 1990s. Microsoft's , released in May 1990, incorporated Macintosh-inspired elements like tiled and cascading windows and a , achieving over 90% market share among PC GUIs by 1993 and establishing these as normative for productivity software across platforms including and Unix variants. Complementary decisions, such as Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc. (1995), extended this by holding menu command hierarchies uncopyrightable as methods of operation, further promoting and discouraging proprietary silos in user interaction patterns. (Note: The Supreme Court's 4-4 affirmance via tie vote upheld the First Circuit's ruling.) These precedents shifted developer incentives from unique, defensible designs toward compatible, user-familiar interfaces, aligning with emerging voluntary standards like IBM's Common User Access (CUA) guidelines introduced in 1987, which Microsoft integrated into Windows for consistent keyboard shortcuts and dialog behaviors. The diminished viability of look-and-feel claims under copyright also spurred reliance on alternative protections like , but courts' skepticism toward non-distinctive GUI aesthetics—requiring proof of secondary meaning and non-functionality—limited their role in enforcing divergence, indirectly endorsing convergence as a market-driven standard. By the mid-1990s, this legal environment contributed to homogenized desktop environments in commercial OSes, with third-party toolkits like OSF Motif (1990) and OpenLook standardizing widget appearances for Unix workstations to mimic Windows/Mac familiarity, reducing training costs and enhancing cross-platform portability. Empirical outcomes include the desktop metaphor's entrenchment: surveys from the era showed user preference for familiar, iterative designs over novel ones, with Windows' dominance correlating to its emulation of Macintosh without Apple's hardware constraints. Critics in the UI design community argued that pre-ruling uncertainty stifled experimentation, but post-case proliferation of similar interfaces evidenced standardization's benefits for adoption over innovation in core paradigms.

Debates and Critiques

Pro-Intellectual Property Arguments for Protection

Proponents of protection for software look and feel contend that it provides essential economic incentives for developers to invest in the substantial resources required to create distinctive and user-friendly interfaces. The development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) often involves high upfront costs for research, user testing, and , estimated in some cases to exceed millions of dollars per project; without exclusivity, imitators could replicate successful elements at lower , leading to underinvestment in innovation as firms anticipate free-riding by competitors. This rationale draws from standard IP economics, where temporary monopolies enable cost recovery and risk mitigation for non-rivalrous creations like interface aesthetics. Trade dress protection under trademark is advanced as a key mechanism to safeguard the overall visual and experiential coherence of a GUI, preventing consumer confusion and preserving source identification. Distinctive combinations of colors, layouts, and interactive flows can acquire secondary meaning through market use, allowing owners to enforce against substantially similar copies that dilute or mislead users about origins. For example, in applications, has been invoked to counter clones that mimic core aesthetic and navigational features, thereby sustaining the original developer's while promoting differentiation based on design quality rather than mere functionality. Advocates argue this fosters long-term market stability, as protected designs encourage ongoing refinement to maintain competitive edges. Design patents are highlighted for their role in securing the ornamental, non-functional aspects of GUIs, such as screen icons, dynamic displays, and spatial arrangements, independent of underlying code or processes. Issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for eligible ornamental designs since the , these patents grant 15-year terms of exclusivity, incentivizing aesthetic creativity by prohibiting unauthorized replication of the claimed visual appearance. Pro-IP scholars note that this layered protection—complementing utility patents for innovative functions—addresses gaps in copyright's idea-expression , enabling firms to capture value from holistic user experiences that blend form and subtle . Copyright-based arguments emphasize that specific expressive elements within a look and feel, including arranged sequences of screens and stylistic choices, qualify as original authorship protectable against infringement via tests for . While courts have narrowed scope to avoid monopolizing ideas, supporters maintain that recognizing protectable expression in UI totality deters verbatim appropriations, as seen in early disputes where overall was deemed infringing. This approach, they assert, balances dissemination of functional ideas with rewards for creative labor, ultimately benefiting users through superior, iteratively improved interfaces derived from protected innovations.

Free Market Critiques of Overbroad Claims

Free market advocates argue that expansive protections for the "look and feel" of software interfaces and product designs confer monopolistic advantages on originators, distorting price signals and impeding rivals from building upon successful features through —a process essential for dynamic competition and cost reduction. These critiques, rooted in Austrian and economics, posit that such claims often overreach by safeguarding functional attributes under guises like copyright's expression or trade dress's source identification, thereby excluding efficient alternatives and generating deadweight losses estimated in broader IP analyses at billions in foregone consumer surplus annually. For instance, protecting elements risks enforcing standards that lock in suboptimal designs, as competitors must deviate to avoid infringement, raising development costs and fragmenting user experiences. In software, historical overbroad assertions of look and feel copyrights, such as Lotus Development Corp.'s 1987 suit alleging infringement of its 1-2-3 spreadsheet's structure, drew rebukes for threatening compatibility and market entry; the U.S. of Appeals for the First Circuit in 1995 held such hierarchies as unprotectable "methods of operation," enabling clones that expanded the market from Lotus's near-monopoly to diverse offerings by 1990s competitors like and . Similarly, Apple's 1988 claim against Microsoft's Windows for mimicking Macintosh interface elements was settled with a broad , but detractors highlighted how full enforcement could have stifled adoption, contrasting with the post-settlement proliferation of Windows variants that captured over 90% desktop market share by 2000 while fostering ancillary innovations in . For physical products, critiques target design patents and extensions to configuration, as in v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2012), where a $1.05 billion verdict (subsequently reduced to $548 million by 2018) for infringing patents on icons and bezels was faulted for encompassing commonplace rounded edges and grids, functional for and screen maximization rather than mere ornamentation, thus barring Samsung from optimizing devices in a market where historically accelerated feature diffusion, such as slide-to-unlock mechanisms spreading across platforms by 2013. Economists note that absent such barriers, sectors like thrive via rapid copying—evidenced by annual outputs exceeding 50 billion garments without design patents—suggesting analogous for tech aesthetics would similarly boost variety and affordability without empirical diminishment in creativity. These positions underscore a for contract-based or reputation-driven safeguards over state-enforced exclusivity, aligning with observations that voluntary open standards, like those in web browsers post-1990s antitrust scrutiny, yielded gains outpacing proprietary silos.

Impacts on Innovation and User Experience Design

The pursuit of broad look and feel protections through copyright litigation has often diverted substantial resources from innovation toward legal defense, as exemplified by Apple's 1988 lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows allegedly copying the Macintosh . This decade-long dispute, which Apple ultimately lost in 1994 when courts ruled that functional interface ideas and desktop metaphors could not receive patent-like protection, consumed significant engineering and executive attention at Apple, contributing to its erosion from 20% in 1988 to under 5% by 1997. User interface professionals have widely viewed such lawsuits as fostering uncertainty that discourages experimental design, with surveys indicating that the software copyright look and feel cases created apprehension among designers, who anticipated negative repercussions for their field and opposed robust protections that might constrain iterative development. This climate prompted a shift toward emphasizing non-copyrightable elements like underlying functionality and efficiency, while the rejection of holistic look and feel claims enabled competitors to adopt proven conventions, such as overlapping windows and menu-driven , accelerating GUI standardization across platforms by the mid-1990s. In terms of , limited protectability has promoted familiarity and reduced for users by permitting convergent aesthetics—evident in the post-litigation proliferation of similar desktop paradigms in operating systems like Windows, which by 1993 commanded over 90% of the PC market, allowing designers to build on shared tropes rather than reinventing core interactions. However, proponents of stronger safeguards, including design patents for ornamental UI elements, argue that without them, originators underinvest in polished experiences, as free-riding competitors erode returns; for instance, U.S. design patents issued since the 2010s have protected specific GUI visuals, potentially incentivizing differentiation in mobile and web interfaces. This tension underscores how overbroad claims risk entrenching incumbents at the expense of dynamic evolution, while targeted protections may balance investment with competitive pressures.

Empirical Evidence from Industry Outcomes

In the desktop operating system market, Microsoft's release of in 1990, which emulated key elements of Apple's Macintosh such as overlapping windows, icons, and menus, contributed to Windows achieving rapid market dominance. By 1993, Windows held approximately 90% of the desktop OS market , while Apple's Mac OS share declined to around 5-10%, demonstrating how UI imitation facilitated user familiarity and accelerated adoption on cheaper hardware. Similarly, in the mobile sector, Android's iterative UI designs, including gesture-based navigation and icon layouts resembling those in , enabled and partners like to capture significant post-2008 launch. Android's global OS share grew to over 70% by 2024, compared to 's 28%, with imitation lowering development barriers for diverse hardware and reducing device prices, expanding overall from 150 million units in 2008 to over 1.5 billion annually by 2020. The Lotus v. Borland case (1995-1996) illustrates mixed outcomes in , where Borland's replicated the menu command structure of without copying code, leading to a deadlock and Borland's appellate victory. This permitted compatible clones, commoditizing spreadsheets, dropping prices, and eroding Lotus's dominance—its market share fell below Excel's by the mid-1990s—yet fostering competition that integrated spreadsheets into broader suites like , boosting productivity tool adoption. Apple's design patent victories against Samsung (2012-2018), awarding $548 million for UI element infringement, failed to reverse Android's gains; Samsung's smartphone shipments surpassed Apple's in volume by 2011, and the ecosystem's fragmentation via imitation supported diverse price points, with average device costs declining 20-30% post-2010 due to competitive emulation. These cases collectively indicate that UI imitation correlates with heightened competition, price deflation, and market expansion, though originators like Apple sustained premium segments through branding beyond protectable look and feel.

References

  1. https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/look-and-feel
  2. https://www.yourdictionary.com/look-and-feel
  3. https://www.computerlaw.com/articles/look-and-feel-in-computer-software/
  4. https://simplicable.com/design/look-and-feel
  5. https://cyber.harvard.edu/property/protection/resources/byerly_unedited.html
  6. https://www.pillsburylaw.com/a/web/1353/43B42EE30058F9E47223237D4DA2EB30.pdf
  7. https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/90_529.pdf
  8. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4841&context=uclrev
  9. https://assets.fenwick.com/legacy/FenwickDocuments/Look_-_Feel.pdf
  10. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/FUNCTIONALITY-AND-EXPRESSION-IN-COMPUTER-PROGRAMS.pdf
  11. https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=jlt
  12. https://www.sgrlaw.com/briefings/474/
  13. https://spectrum.ieee.org/graphical-user-interface
  14. https://interface-experience.org/objects/xerox-alto/
  15. https://www.filfre.net/2018/07/doing-windows-part-6-look-and-feel/
  16. https://www.toptal.com/designers/ui/touch-the-world-is-our-interface
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080515748500108
  18. https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/05/gui/
  19. https://www.sitepoint.com/real-history-gui/
  20. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/462/1003/2142929/
  21. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/99/
  22. https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/1988-apple-sues-microsoft/
  23. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/35/1435/605245/
  24. https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/int-prop/myers-apple-v-microsoft.html
  25. https://www.quimbee.com/cases/lotus-development-corp-v-borland-international
  26. https://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/Lotus.html
  27. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/788/78/1599920/
  28. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/493-copyright/resources/3.2.1-lotus-development-corp-v-borland-international-inc/
  29. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/94-2003
  30. https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/cx/1995_Lotus.pdf
  31. https://www.osnews.com/story/26322/apple-vs-dri-the-iotheri-look-and-feel-lawsuit/
  32. https://ctrl-alt-rees.com/2023-05-13-how-apple-ruined-gem-and-nearly-windows-too.html
  33. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/759/1444/1472666/
  34. https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Apple-loses-case-vs-H-P-Microsoft-3158247.php
  35. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101
  36. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/799/1006/1379197/
  37. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=900148
  38. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/821/616/1510619/
  39. https://houstonlawreview.org/article/92128-grounding-the-scenes-a-faire-doctrine
  40. https://repository.law.uic.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1446&context=jitpl
  41. https://www.uaipit.com/uploads/publicaciones/files/1331029763_How_to_protect_graphical_user_interfaces.pdf
  42. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2542&context=clr
  43. https://cyber.harvard.edu/property/protection/resources/byerly.html
  44. https://ipmall.law.unh.edu/sites/default/files/hosted_resources/IDEA/p187.Caslowitz.pdf
  45. https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/346242/protecting-your-look-and-feel-when-your-store-is-made-of-bytes-not-bricks-using-design-patents-for-graphical-user-interfaces
  46. https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/context/wps/article/1198/viewcontent/functionality_and_graphical_user.pdf
  47. https://www.finnegan.com/en/firm/news/screen-in-how-counsel-protect-graphical-user-interfaces.html
  48. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=jolt
  49. https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/publications/protecting-a-companys-graphical-user-interface-may-6-2002
  50. https://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/79-6-Samuelson.pdf
  51. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/14-1335/14-1335-2015-05-18.html
  52. https://www.law360.com/articles/78774/defining-look-and-feel-infringement-of-web-sites
  53. https://www.qt.io/blog/shaping-the-future-of-digital-experience-ui-framework-graphics
  54. https://www.netguru.com/blog/java-ui-frameworks
  55. https://www.carmatec.com/blog/top-java-gui-frameworks-to-consider/
  56. https://smarimccarthy.is/posts/2024-01-15-widget-sets/
  57. https://prismic.io/blog/react-component-libraries
  58. https://scorpiosoftware.net/2023/04/22/the-quest-for-the-ultimate-gui-framework/
  59. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
  60. https://texaslawreview.org/interfaces-and-interoperability-after-google-v-oracle/
  61. https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v31/31HarvJLTech305.pdf
  62. https://lowendmac.com/2006/the-apple-vs-microsoft-gui-lawsuit/
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234782502_What_the_user_interface_field_thinks_of_the_software_copyright_look_and_feel_lawsuits_and_what_the_law_ought_to_do_about_it
  64. https://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~glushko/glushko_files/UIFieldLookFeelLawsuits.pdf
  65. https://repository.law.uic.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1425&context=ripl
  66. https://ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/PracticalApproachtoProtectionofGUIinUS.pdf
  67. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ip-protection-for-a-gui-part-1-of-2-5256409/
  68. https://fee.org/articles/how-intellectual-property-hampers-the-free-market/
  69. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-views-intellectual-property-rothbard-tucker-spooner-rand
  70. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/63485.63487
  71. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1348&context=hastings_comm_ent_law_journal
  72. http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v03/03HarvJLTech195.pdf
  73. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr/vol7/iss1/8/
  74. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/context/mlr/article/3407/viewcontent/uc.pdf
  75. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/28/apple-rot-starts-with-samsung-lawsuit-win
  76. https://www.zdnet.com/article/30-years-before-samsung-when-apple-sued-microsoft/
  77. https://ipbusinessacademy.org/u-s-design-patents-for-user-interfaces-ui
  78. https://timberry.bplans.com/a-marketing-challenge/
  79. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide/
  80. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
  81. https://www.digitalsilk.com/digital-trends/iphone-vs-android-user-stats/
  82. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/29/business/lotus-wins-copyright-decision.html
  83. https://personal.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/book/sheets/sheet.html
  84. https://www.inquartik.com/blog/case-design-patent-infringement-smartphone-industry/
  85. https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-samsung-patent-20180627-story.html
  86. https://foxforensicaccounting.com/blog/how-apple-v-samsung-changed-the-patent-design-landscape-webinar-may-19
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.