Linotype has won a judgement from the EU against Microsoft, declaring MS’s trademark of the Segoe UI font invalid, because it is virtually identical to Linotype’s Frutiger LT 45 Light font.
Obviously, there is still more to be learned, like whether Microsoft intentionally copied Frutiger while making Segoe, but the fact is, fonts are copied all the time, many times by Microsoft, and if you can’t prove intent, and if there are slight differences, you can usually get away with it.
So, are there any differences between Frutiger and Segoe? Well, based on the image on this page and my own copy of Segoe on my system, here’s what I found:
Now, this isn’t the most scientific of analysis, but it makes me happy. On the left, in each screenshot, you see Frutiger; on the right, Segoe UI. These are the six of the main letters (capital or lower case) that I felt were noticeably different. The differences are truly pronounced in the two capital letters.
So, it is possible that Microsoft simply designed a font very similar to Frutiger, either by design or by accident (they are logical letter shapes, after all), one that legally isn’t a trademark violation. The similarity of the two fonts could result in the EU not letting Microsoft register a trademark, but I believe the subtle differences are enough that no one could force Microsoft to pay royalties.
Okay, now that its done, you may be wondering why the hell this is important. Well, I’ll tell you: Segoe UI is the UI font in Windows Vista. Its the font in the whole operating system, from dialog boxes, to the start menu, and recommended for use in all Vista software. So having to pay royalties on that? Bad thing.
No, this time the dispute is over fonts; specifically Segoe, one of the typefaces Microsoft wants to use in Vista. Microsoft filed its “registered community design” for the font back in January of 2004, paid the required fee, and everything was great-until December.
As the owner of the Linotype brand, Heidelbeger Druckmaschinen claimed that Microsoft’s “new” font was a blatant ripoff of Linotype’s own Frutiger LT 45 Light, which has been sold by the company for years. Heidelbeger Druckmaschinen provided Lieferschein and Rechnung (delivery certificates and invoices) to the Invalidity Division showing that they had sold this font since at least 2000. They also included a CD containing a copy of the font in question.
In response, Microsoft’s German lawyers tried to argue that the CD in question did not constitute prior art because that particular CD was produced in 2005. They also argued that the invoices alone proved only that something was sold, but did not establish a definite link to the font in question. This is obviously not much of a defense, and the company did not help its case by conceding that Frutiger and Segoe “should be considered identical.”
So they threw Microsoft’s application out and ordered the company to pay all the fees incurred by Heidelberger Druckmaschinen. The finding raises the larger question of whether Microsoft ever licensed the font at all; and if they did not (and it appears that they did not), will they be on the hook for significant damages if Segoe does indeed show up in the final version of Vista?
Add to document.write(“Del.icio.us”) | Digg | Yahoo! My Web
Technorati:
Nathan Weinberg writes the popular InsideGoogle blog, offering the latest news and insights about Google and search engines.
Visit the InsideGoogle blog.
