Seems like a valid complaint, and the if it's true, the brief should have been rejected before MS had to get involved.
Making jokes about a topic one clearly knows nothing about is a good way to get people to laugh at you, not with you.They're probably using iWork! Maybe size 11 is smaller than M$ office?![]()
You seem to have accepted that Apple is in the wrong. But I suggest you should try not to parcel out wrongdoing so fast. As a lawyer I can tell you that court documents are quite often filed with table of contents and table of authorities. They do not count towards the page limit. I've looked at Apple's brief and it appears to be 25 pages. I've also converted the PDF to Word and it tells me that Apple used Times New Roman at 11 point font. so unless there was something wrong in the conversion, it appears to be fine. Most people don't file these sorts of complaints.
the funny thing to me is that so many people in this thread think it just have been a mistake....
Apple responded, got recorded file with court, that 35 page response. MS had to pay people to read it, review it, and file a complaint against it. The court will rule against the complaint, then Apple will have more time to refile it corrected. the net effect is that Apple has postponed the ruling, and felt out MS's game plan. MS is not concerned with delaying the ruling. Apple is obviously very happy with delaying the ruling. This was not unintentional.
I wasn't aware we had so many patent lawyers on MR.
The Internets, where everyone is an expert.
And Apple was already using windows in it's OSs (Lisa, etc...) before MS did "Windows"... And IIRC, there were other OSs that were using crude types of windows, too.Actually, there was an application store before iOS... Apple just trademarked it first as the "app store", which is what MS is trying to say is not justified. And unless you have your J.D., you probably don't know what you're talking about.
The abbreviation "apps" has been around a long time. If you asked any PDA owner in 2000 what app store he used, he'd have known what you meant, and would've replied Handango or Palm Store or whatever.
The article uses the word "apps" almost a dozen times.
That's THREE years before the Apple App Store.
The article uses the word "apps" quite a lot, but where does it use the word "app store"?
This is stupid. I mean, Apple shouldn't have used 11p font; it doesn't make sense.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A400 Safari/6531.22.7)
Apple computers run "APPlicationS"
So they logically called iOS software "Apps"
Windows runs "PROGramS"
What should Microsoft call their store and the software for their mobile OS? Let me think...
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A400 Safari/6531.22.7)
Apple computers run "APPlicationS"
So they logically called iOS software "Apps"
Windows runs "PROGramS"
What should Microsoft call their store and the software for their mobile OS? Let me think...
But the arguement Apple is using, is that the 'App' in 'App Store' stands for 'Apple'.
Sent from my iPad Safari Apple.
Wait till Microsoft realizes that Apple had it 90% of double-spaced.
Anyone remember making their school reports 12.5 font size and 110% double-spaced to ensure things would be the right length?