Times new roman

[sledgehammer]

How Microsoft got rights to a font which had been in use since the 1800s, I'll never know.   But I do know that, to its credit, the US Supreme Court won't accept legal briefs done in Times New Roman.  Or Calibri.

Under its rules the Century family of fonts is required.

Suck an egg, Gates.

[GrannyGeek]

I think you're just trying to bash Microsoft, but you have your facts wrong.

How Microsoft got rights to a font which had been in use since the 1800s, I'll never know. 

Agfa Monotype owns the copyright for Times New Roman as well as the trademark for Times New Roman. Microsoft got the rights to Times New Roman from Monotype for inclusion in Windows 3.1 by entering into a licensing agreement--probably involving a great deal of money, but I don't know the details. Times New Roman most certainly was not in use since the 1800s. It was drawn by Victor Lardent for Stanley Morison in 1931.

 But I do know that, to its credit, the US Supreme Court won't accept legal briefs done in Times New Roman.  Or Calibri.
Under its rules the Century family of fonts is required.

Why "to its credit"? Virtually every court has rules about style and size of type to be used in briefs and other documents. This is necessary for uniformity and readibility. It has nothing to do with Microsoft or Apple or Monotype or Linotype. (Linotype owns copyright and trademark to Times Roman, which was licensed to Apple for the Macintosh OS.) Times/Times New Roman set narrowly and are really not a good choice for briefs, reports, books, etc. They were designed for narrow newspaper columns. The Century family sets wider and is more open and better suited for documents submitted to a court. Anyone can easily use Century Expanded or Century Schoolbook on Windows or Mac OS or Linux, but you'll have to supply the font. So what? I have about 2000 fonts that *I* supplied, either by buying them or because they were included in software I bought or legally obtained.

Suck an egg, Gates.

Again, you're seeing a rebuke or defeat where none exists.
--GrannyGeek

[sledgehammer]

I know nothing of copyright law or patent law or whatever kind of law would allow someone to own a font for 70 years.  But I don't think much of such a law.  Reminds me of the recent attempts to patent parts of the human body . . . of the recent successful attempts to patent plants which have been around for thousands of years. Give em 10 or 20 years or so to make their money back.  That's enough.  We are extolling property rights far beyond that necessary for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Somebody soon will take out a patent on a particular growth pattern among pine trees and charge us to look at a forest of uncut Christmas trees. My two bits.

John