Computers, Ethics, and Business ‘The Apple Versus Microsoft Case Most people would readily agree that stealing is wrong and that the misap: propriation of another person's property is stealing. In the area of computer software, however, what constitutes stealing or misappropriation is not al ways clear. Copyright law seeks to help define the Icgal parameters of intel: lectual property and the rights of a person in the intelleetval property he ot she creates. But copyright law was originally intended to cover the written expression of ideas, and the transfer of some of the concepts to computer software has far from been an exact ft. In 1964 che Copyright Office started eating softwate as "literary works.” Although the 1976 US, copyright law did not explicitly mention computer software, che 1980 Amendments did. Nonetheless, the interpretation of the Iaw has proceeded via judicial deci sions, and judges in different U.S. distriets have handed down judgments that have not always been consistent. The U.S. Supreme Court has not handed down any decisions, and so to some extent there is no binding na- tional interpretation. One of the unclear areas concerns the so-called look and fee! disputes, the ‘most prominent of which is the Apple versus Microsoft case.! "For details ofthis ease sce Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Coporation. No, C8: 20149-VRW, United States District Court, N-D. California, Federal Supplement. 799 1933) bp. 1006-1047. For a summary and commentary, see "The Ups aad Downs of Look and Feel Communications of the ACM. 36, no. (Apr) 1998) pp. 29-38, 336 Computers, Ethies, and Business 337 Apple-had-produced the Macintosh computer and had developed a dis- Linctive graphical user interlace to go with it, ineluding pulldown screens or windows, windows within windows, and a variety of icons for a variety of different tasks (e.g, a Tile folder represented a file, a trash can represented discarded files). When Microsoft introduced the now very popular software program Windows, which was written not for Apple computers but for IBM. compatible computers that use MS-DOS as the operating system, it in- cluded many of the features that were previously available only on Apple computers. Apple Computer, Ine,, sued Microsoft for 189 infringements of its soft- ware copyrights. Although U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the Ninth Circuit, who heard the case, threw out many of the elaimed infringe- ‘nyeuts ona variety of technical grounds, che heart of the controversy lay in Apple's claim to the “look and! feel” ofits software. Apple maintained that although individual instances of copying might be allowed for various rea sons under copyright law, Apple had a right to claim protection for the ar- tistie interpretation it had designed in the look of the computer screen produced by its software. Although, for instance, the general idea of using, icons could not be protected by copyright, its distinctive display—its special Jook—could be protected. The “feel” at iesue referred to the use of a string of keystroke sequences that people would employ in using the program, which gave the progeam a distinetive “feel.” Apple Computes, Inc,, clearly wanted to protect its originality and the market appeal that this originality provided, For its part Microsoft wished to make its DOS system more attraetive, to offer DOS users some of the advantages previously available only to Apple users, and so gain sgreater market share. The motives of each are clear. But what belonged to Apple, and did Microsoft inappropriately use what did not belong to it? ‘The crucial question is this: if we consider all of the individual items that Apple claimed Microsoft copied, whether or not protected by copy right, can the combination of those in an artistic or creative manner be protected? ‘Our concern here is not with the technical legal aspects of the ease, for those were argued by the respective lawyers and decided by judge Walker Our concer, rather, is with what morally belongs to whom in such a con- troversy. Is there any way to argue that one or the other side was morally he in its claim, even though the copyright laws did or did not grant the disputed property right? Is what is morally correct here decided by lew— ‘meaning that without a legal decision theze is no right ot wrong or that there is no claim to a right unless itis protected by law? On utilitarian grounds, is more good than harm done for software-producing rms, users, and soci ‘ety in general ifthe look and fee] of computer software is protected by copy- Fight? Ate there ownership rights to an artistic and ereative sereen design that should be respected?