Grayhaze, the courts have been reticent to apply penalties when there can be no damages shown. Similarly, (and I forget the exact percentage, but I think it's small, like 20%) if a certain percentage of the work is changed from the original, it is not subject to being "infringing" work. That is, you can base your new creation on something previously existing if you change a portion of it.
Part of infringing on copyright is the intent of the infringer to capitalize on their efforts (from a legal perspective, that means to make money), and/or to deprive the original copyright holder of any benefits of their work. Now, I never visited this site before it was closed down, but if what was there was designed for the Windows OS, then Apple could not possibly demonstrate how it is being adversely affected by the material there. Similarly, if they were not charging anything for th
If you guys really want to get picky, Apple never "innovated" in the first place. The whole "graphical OS" was developed by Xerox's PARC facility. Apple adapted it for their use, then Microsoft adapted it for their use, and so on, and so on. If anyone should be litigating, it should be Xerox.
Once again, Apple proves itself to be a bully, and to validate the old saying: "when you can't innovate, litigate."
JoeUser Forums