Editing Look and feel (section)

==Lawsuits==
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 International|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.<ref name=NewsW>{{cite magazine
|magazine=Newsweek |date=August 27, 1990  |author1=John Scwartz
|author2=Debra Rosenberg |title=Computing the Cost of Copyright: Programmers fight "Look and Feel" lawsuits}}</ref> Dealers reported that sales of the clones increased because of publicity from the lawsuit.<ref name="warner19870223">{{Cite magazine |last=Warner |first=Edward |date=1987-02-23 |title=Lotus' Suit Has Not Affected Clone Sales, Dealers Report |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1DAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA27#v=onepage&q&f=true |access-date=2025-05-21 |magazine=InfoWorld |page=29 |volume=9 |issue=8}}</ref>

In December 1989,<ref>{{cite news |newspaper=The New York Times
|author=Lawrence Fisher  |date=December 15, 1989
|title=Xerox Sues Apple Computer Over Macintosh Copyright
|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html}}</ref> Xerox
sued Apple over the Macintosh copyright. 

[[Apple Computer]] was notable for its use of the term ''look and feel'' in reference to their [[classic Mac OS|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 [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] [[operating system]] was illegally copying their look and feel.<ref name=ForbGood>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/10/25/yes-google-stole-from-apple-and-thats-a-good-thing/|title=Yes, Google "Stole" From Apple, And That's A Good Thing|magazine=Forbes|author=Timothy B. Lee|date=2011-10-25|access-date=2015-08-13}}</ref>

Although provoking a vehement reaction from some in the [[software]] community,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull5.html#SEC9|title=Special Report: Apple's New Look and Feel}}</ref> and causing [[Richard Stallman]] to form the [[League for Programming Freedom]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/digital-inclusion-in-freedom.en.html#content|title=Is Digital Inclusion a Good Thing? How Can We Make Sure It Is?|publisher=GNU |author=Richard Stallman|access-date=2015-08-13}}</ref> 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===
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.<ref name=ForbGood/><ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/derekbroes/2011/09/24/samsung-vs-apple-and-the-winner-is/|title=Samsung vs. Apple: And The Winner Is...|magazine=Forbes|author=Derek Broes|date=2011-09-24|access-date=2015-08-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/31/5564134/round-two-apple-and-samsung-suit-up-for-another-billon-dollar-patent|title=Round two: Apple and Samsung suit up for another billion dollar patent war|website=The Verge|author=Josh Lowensohn|date=March 31, 2014|access-date=2015-08-13}}</ref>