Connection lost
Server error
APPLE COMPUTER, INC. v. MICROSOFT CORP. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Apple sued Microsoft, alleging the Windows graphical user interface (GUI) infringed the copyright of its Macintosh GUI. The court held for Microsoft, finding that most similarities were either licensed or were unprotectable ideas, and the remaining protectable expression was not ‘virtually identical.’
Legal Significance: This case established the ‘analytic dissection’ method for software GUI copyright claims. It holds that after filtering out licensed and unprotectable elements, the remaining expression in a complex work may only receive ‘thin’ protection, requiring a showing of virtual identity for infringement.
APPLE COMPUTER, INC. v. MICROSOFT CORP. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Apple Computer, Inc. developed the Lisa and Macintosh computers, which featured a novel graphical user interface (GUI) based on a desktop metaphor with windows, icons, and menus. Apple registered its GUI as an audiovisual work. After Microsoft Corporation released Windows 1.0, which had a similar GUI, the parties executed a 1985 license agreement. The agreement granted Microsoft the right to use and sublicense derivative works based on the ‘visual displays’ in Windows 1.0. Subsequently, Microsoft released Windows 2.03 and 3.0, and its licensee Hewlett-Packard released NewWave. Apple filed suit, alleging these newer products exceeded the license’s scope and infringed its copyright by incorporating a ‘look and feel’ that was more ‘Mac-like.’ The district court first interpreted the license as covering individual visual elements, not just the Windows 1.0 interface as a whole. It then performed an ‘analytic dissection’ of the GUIs, filtering out licensed elements and unprotectable ideas under doctrines like merger and scenes a faire. Concluding that the remaining protectable expression was minimal, the court determined that Apple’s GUI was entitled to only ‘thin’ copyright protection, requiring a showing of ‘virtual identity’ for infringement. Apple declined to oppose summary judgment under this heightened standard, and the court ruled for the defendants.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the district court err in applying an ‘analytic dissection’ to Apple’s graphical user interface, filtering out licensed and unprotectable elements, and then requiring a showing of ‘virtual identity’ rather than ‘substantial similarity’ to prove copyright infringement?
No. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment for Microsoft, holding that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the district court err in applying an ‘analytic dissection’ to Apple’s graphical user interface, filtering out licensed and unprotectable elements, and then requiring a showing of ‘virtual identity’ rather than ‘substantial similarity’ to prove copyright infringement?
Conclusion
This case solidified the 'analytic dissection' or 'abstraction-filtration-comparison' test for software copyright, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
Legal Rule
In a copyright infringement claim for a complex work like a software Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit am
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit endorsed the district court's three-step analytical framework for copyright Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The court affirmed the use of “analytic dissection” to filter out