rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (10/10/85)
> In article <1196@vax1.fluke.UUCP> pwv@fluke.UUCP (Pat Vilbrandt) writes: > >This is the announcement by Digital Research, Inc. as it appeared on the > >Compuserve GEM SIG on Oct. 1. Seems as though DRI could use some better > >lawers. (Maybe Xerox should sue Apple... :-) > > Anyone who's seen a Xerox (anyone with a dandelion want to comment?) will > be the first to admit similarities, but Apple went very strongly out in > their own direction. The Mac isn't a copy of Xerox' work, it is just > influenced by it. From what the releases say, that isn't as true of the Mac > and GEM (I haven't seen GEM yet, so I won't comment on it). > -- > :From under the bar at Callahan's: Chuq Von Rospach I find it rather hard to believe that Apple would really have a case against DRI. Anyone who has worked with "Object Oriented" systems like the Mac, and "Action Oriented" systems like the PC, Un*x, CP/M... knows how difficult it is to get "Dynamic Run-time Binding" from the "Action Oriented" systems. True, in terms of it's external appearance, the GEM interface looks very much like the Mac interface. But things like binding (install application) are much different. I see Apple's possiveness of "Pull Down Menus" and such as a little like trying to Trademark each letter of the alphabet and expecting to collect royalties. DRI was very cautious about avoiding anything that was declared a "Registered Trademark" by Apple. The even used different terminology. Even the "Pop out" menus on the top line are very different in usage from the Mac. GEM "pops out" the menus if the selector (arrow) even touches a word in the top line ( this is a complaint for some Mac users ). In fact, Creative Computing (Oct 1985) has a review of the ST which cites the differences as "Bugs". Patent, Trademark, and Copywright laws were designed to promote creativity. In fact, the current laws, as used and interpreted by the computer industry are being used to stifle creativity. If a playwright wants to create a script from a novelist, he gets a "royalty agreement" from the novelist. Often, patent rights are "traded" between competing companies. If Apple has the right to sue DRI over "General Appearance", then DRI should be able to sue Apple over the "Concept" of a BIOS/BDOS, along with suing IBM/Microsoft. It's almost like declaring "open, close, read, write, seek, and flush" as trademarks. The basic terminology for these processes has become standard. Without this terminology, software engineering would be "the tower of babel". Apple (Jobs) wanted to dictate the industry standards for this (Icons & windows) generation of computers. They succeded to a point, now they want to collect. It's a little like putting Kermit or FIDO in public domain for a few years, then expecting to collect royalties for those copies distributed as public domain. Suppose whoever came up with the various "word processor" functionalities, used on virtually all "full screen" editors, decided it was time to "pay the piper". Erase your word processor or pay a $5000 fine. English is a language of coined words. When a new concept is developed, we generate unique vocabulary to describe it. We could have called those cute little pictures "Hieroglyphics" instead of "Icons", but no one trademarked the word "Icon" in this context. Must we continue to try and figure out new terms for these "menus that appear from nowhere"? There does need to be some level of "invention protection" for new software concepts, but copyrighting each of the "musical chords" of software is not the way to go about it. If we found "the lost chord" of music, could we copyright it? If Von-Neuman or Turing had patented all of the algorythms used in modern computers, computer software development would have been shackled for twenty years. Kay, Jobs, and the other Mac developers have given a great gift to the industry in the form of an interface with humans that does not require great effort to learn. For this, they should get a Nobel Prize or something, but not the right to sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes up with a usable "mouse and windows" interface! [These opinions are mine alone, and subject to change without notice] Rex B.
halff@utah-cs.UUCP (Henry M. Halff) (10/10/85)
>From rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) Wed Oct 9 16:27:57 1985 >Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.micro.atari,net.micro.mac >Subject: Re: DRI agrees to change GEM ; why?? >Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group, Rochester NY > >> In article <1196@vax1.fluke.UUCP> pwv@fluke.UUCP (Pat Vilbrandt) writes: >> >This is the announcement by Digital Research, Inc. as it appeared on the >> >Compuserve GEM SIG on Oct. 1. Seems as though DRI could use some better >> >lawers. (Maybe Xerox should sue Apple... :-) >> >> Anyone who's seen a Xerox (anyone with a dandelion want to comment?) will >> be the first to admit similarities, but Apple went very strongly out in >> their own direction. The Mac isn't a copy of Xerox' work, it is just >> influenced by it. From what the releases say, that isn't as true of the Mac >> and GEM (I haven't seen GEM yet, so I won't comment on it). >> -- >> :From under the bar at Callahan's: Chuq Von Rospach > > >If Von-Neuman or Turing had patented all of the algorythms used in modern >computers, computer software development would have been shackled for >twenty years. > When I was first learning about computers (around '68) I asked a teacher why it was that CDC machines used 1's complement arithmetic. He replied that IBM held hefty patents on two's complement algorithms that Control Data did not want to pay for. I have no idea whether or not this story is true, but, if so, it shows that Apple isn't the only one playing the patent game. -- Henry M. Halff Halff Resources, Inc. halff@utah-cs.ARPA 4918 33rd Road, N., Arlington, VA 22207
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/12/85)
> I find it rather hard to believe that Apple would really have a case against > DRI. Anyone who has worked with "Object Oriented" systems like the Mac, > and "Action Oriented" systems like the PC, Un*x, CP/M... knows how difficult > it is to get "Dynamic Run-time Binding" from the "Action Oriented" systems. Could you clarify this point? I was under the impression that the Mac operating system was simply a standard CP/M like system with a BIOS/BDOS (whatever they call the DOS), a CCP (the finder), and a TPA. The way Switcher works (almost exactly like DoubleDos on the IBM) makes this painfully obvious. I was also under the impression that an Object Oriented system would be capable of many things the Mac isn't able to do, such as allowing an arbitrary number of co-resident programs ala SmallTalk, which would of course make Switcher rather redundant. Are you implying that the Mac is an Object Oriented system of the SmallTalk genre, as well as having a SmallTalk-like user interface? Also, what is an "Action Oriented" system in this context?
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/12/85)
In article <299@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes: >I find it rather hard to believe that Apple would really have a case against >DRI. >True, in terms of it's external appearance, the GEM interface looks very >much like the Mac interface. These comments are mutually exclusive.... The case was specifically for the visual copyright, so looking too much like the Mac was exactly what Apple was (deservedly) upset about. If you spend 25 man years making someone, and someone else borrows your design, does it in 5 many years, charges less, and puts you out of business, wouldn't you be upset? Business needs to be able to protect its R&D or R&D simply won't get done. >But things like binding (install application) >are much different. This also has nothing to do with the visual copyright.... > I see Apple's possiveness of "Pull Down Menus" and >such as a little like trying to Trademark each letter of the alphabet >and expecting to collect royalties. Why? If I was the first to design an algorithm and got protection for it, I'd expect to be able to protect it.... If I invented an alphabet, I'd sure want royalties for it... That is an easy statement to make, I'd love to see you back it up with a good reason. >Patent, Trademark, and Copywright laws were designed to promote creativity. >In fact, the current laws, as used and interpreted by the computer industry >are being used to stifle creativity. Can you prove that? Again, if I spend my R&D budget designing a new nifty, and someone else takes a copy of my nifty, redesigns it, and puts me out of business, how in the hell was that creative? That is what apple is trying to prevent -- if they wrote GEM to be better than Mac, fine -- but if all they did was take what Mac developed and carry it across, that is frankly illegal. >If a playwright wants to create a script from a novelist, he gets a "royalty >agreement" from the novelist. Often, patent rights are "traded" between >competing companies. If GEM had set up an agreement with Apple, they wouldn't be IN this position. They just took. >Apple (Jobs) wanted to dictate the industry standards for this >(Icons & windows) generation of computers. They succeded to a point, >now they want to collect. It's a little like putting Kermit or FIDO >in public domain for a few years, then expecting to collect royalties >for those copies distributed as public domain. Huh? Apple never put ANY of that stuff in the public domain, and never pretended to. Also, there happens to be a good precedent for public domain stuff -- Emacs. You can still get an old, crufty version of PD emacs if you want it, or you can buy a significantly improved version from CCA or Unipress (or you can hack on GNU, just to be complete). But that has NOTHING to do with what apple is doing... I wish we could keep our facts straight, folks, instead of these purely emotional rantings... -- :From the caverns of the Crystal Cave: Chuq Von Rospach Currently: nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid}!nsc!chuqui Soon to be: ..!sun!<somethingorother> Our time is past -- it is a time for men, not magic. Come, let us leave this world to the usurpers and rest our weary bones....
kvk@ihlpm.UUCP (Kevin) (10/15/85)
> In article <299@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes: > >I find it rather hard to believe that Apple would really have a case against > >DRI. > > >True, in terms of it's external appearance, the GEM interface looks very > >much like the Mac interface. > > These comments are mutually exclusive.... The case was specifically for the > visual copyright, so looking too much like the Mac was exactly what Apple > was (deservedly) upset about. If you spend 25 man years making someone, and > someone else borrows your design, does it in 5 many years, charges less, > and puts you out of business, wouldn't you be upset? Business needs to be > able to protect its R&D or R&D simply won't get done. > > >But things like binding (install application) > >are much different. > > This also has nothing to do with the visual copyright.... Huh? Visual copyright?! I doubt such a thing exists - Imagine IBM copyrighting not only their ROM code but the look (the top is a plastic rectangle with these little metal pins sticking out... :-) ). My understanding of software copyright law is that someone can produce a program with a similar visual look, and as long as no code is pirated from the first program, no infringement exists. Otherwise Xerox should certainly sue Apple. Anyone know if DRI employed people from the Mac development team? This was my guess on why DRI gave in. These are my personal opinions, such as they are. Kevin Kinder ihnp4!ihlpm!kvk
rsellens@watdcsu.UUCP (Rick Sellens - Mech. Eng.) (10/16/85)
In article <533@ihlpm.UUCP> kvk@ihlpm.UUCP (Kevin) writes: >> In article <299@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes: >> ......................................... The case was specifically for the >> visual copyright, so looking too much like the Mac was exactly what Apple >> was (deservedly) upset about......... >> >> >But things like binding (install application) >> >are much different. >> >> This also has nothing to do with the visual copyright.... > >Huh? Visual copyright?! I doubt such a thing exists - Imagine IBM copyrighting >not only their ROM code but the look (the top is a plastic rectangle with these >little metal pins sticking out... :-) ). > >My understanding of software copyright law is that someone can produce a program >with a similar visual look, and as long as no code is pirated from the first >program, no infringement exists. Otherwise Xerox should certainly sue Apple. > >Anyone know if DRI employed people from the Mac development team? This was my >guess on why DRI gave in. > >These are my personal opinions, such as they are. > > Kevin Kinder > ihnp4!ihlpm!kvk I believe a suit over piracy of video game code was settled a while ago with damages awarded for copyright violation. The question of ROM copy- right was left up in the air in that decision, but the copyright the company had on the fixed scenario "come-on" screens was upheld. It seems to me that if Apple has copyright and or trademark registrations on their desktop image they may be able to get damages from anyone who copies that image, in whatever form. Whether that's a good thing probably depends on where you sit. Rick Sellens UUCP: watmath!watdcsu!rsellens CSNET: rsellens%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: rsellens%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Physical: 372A Churchill Court, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 6B4
george@mnetor.UUCP (George Hart) (10/17/85)
In article <3251@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >In article <299@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes: >>I find it rather hard to believe that Apple would really have a case against >>DRI. True, in terms of it's external appearance, the GEM interface looks very >>much like the Mac interface. > >These comments are mutually exclusive.... The case was specifically for the >visual copyright, so looking too much like the Mac was exactly what Apple >was (deservedly) upset about. If you spend 25 man years making someone, and >someone else borrows your design, does it in 5 many years, charges less, >and puts you out of business, wouldn't you be upset? Business needs to be >able to protect its R&D or R&D simply won't get done. There is no such thing as a "visual copyright" per se. Copyright protection can be applied to the "form" of a work (for example, the actual shape of the icons) but offers (in its current form) little protection for software where the algorithms and the concepts behind the interface are the valuable commodities. Copyright law can be semi-effective for things like ROM code (eg. Apple vs. Franklin, Apple II ROMs) but as people such as Compaq have shown, you can still get around it. >> I see Apple's possiveness of "Pull Down Menus" and >>such as a little like trying to Trademark each letter of the alphabet >>and expecting to collect royalties. > >Why? If I was the first to design an algorithm and got protection for it, >I'd expect to be able to protect it.... If I invented an alphabet, I'd sure >want royalties for it... That is an easy statement to make, I'd love to see >you back it up with a good reason. The problem is that there is no effective protection for algorithms in software. Patent law expressly excludes them (unless you created special purpose hardware to implement them) and copyright law only protects their "form" (be it human readable or machine readable). That's why Compaq (in the IBM PC world) can rewrite the IBM ROM code without fear of retribution. There is merit in what you say, however. Software designers should be able to profit from their designs. But not at the expense of unfairly limiting competition or stifling "advancement of the art". The problem is that there is a very fine line between them, one which legal people in several countries (notably Taiwan) having been trying to pin down. >>Patent, Trademark, and Copywright laws were designed to promote creativity. >>In fact, the current laws, as used and interpreted by the computer industry >>are being used to stifle creativity. > >Can you prove that? Again, if I spend my R&D budget designing a new nifty, >and someone else takes a copy of my nifty, redesigns it, and puts me out of >business, how in the hell was that creative? That is what apple is trying >to prevent -- if they wrote GEM to be better than Mac, fine -- but if all >they did was take what Mac developed and carry it across, that is frankly >illegal. Apple is proving it for us. Granted Apple was responsible for some neat innovations (like the Quickdraw ROMs), and *appearance* of some of the icons, etc. But consider that: 1. It has all been done before. 2. GEM is similiar but is not (by any means) a complete ripoff of the Mac. As far designing niftys goes, if someone can redesign your nifty (which includes porting to radically differing architectures, supporting varying hardware devices, etc, writing *all* code from scratch) and put you out of business, that's life. Don't expect everyone else to sit still while you rest on your laurels. It is your business and you have a responsibility (to yourself) to continue to innovate and keep the "nifty redesigners" off-balance (BTW, this is in the first person because the original posting was, nothing personal :-). This is essentially what Visicorp *did not* do and why 1-2-3 is really the only spreadsheet you hear about now. >If GEM had set up an agreement with Apple, they wouldn't be IN this >position. They just took. Personally, I don't think DRI *took* anything they didn't have a right to. But despite the moralistic/quasi-legal argument I have presented, the unfortunate business facts are probably, that if the case had gone to court, it was a no-win for DRI: 1. While in court, DRI probably would been prevented from marketing GEM (even if eventual decision in their favour). 2. Apple probably threatened never to send any work to DRI again and DRI's performance hasn't been earth shattering lately. 3. The publicity would not have helped. 4. Court costs would have been sustantial. 5. DRI might have lost after all. Apple is not a villain. They are a business trying to protect their interests and this time they got away with scare tactics. But Apple is no saint either. The opinions expressed in this article are those of an interested layman and as such, are probably only have a curiosity value. They certainly don't reflect the opinions of my employer. -- Regards, George Hart, Computer X Canada Ltd. UUCP: {allegra|decvax|duke|floyd|linus|ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!george BELL: (416)475-8980
rodb@tektronix.UUCP (Rod Belshee ) (10/17/85)
> > I find it rather hard to believe that Apple would really have a case against > > DRI. Anyone who has worked with "Object Oriented" systems like the Mac, > > and "Action Oriented" systems like the PC, Un*x, CP/M... knows how difficult > > it is to get "Dynamic Run-time Binding" from the "Action Oriented" systems. > *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** (WHY??) I would question anyone who would call the Mac Object Oriented in it's standard configuration. I would pay money to see anyone who can dynamically link conpiled functionality into their programing environment on the Apple Mac in this configuration. You can purchase a Small-Talk subset for the mac (could this be your angle?). Signed Questionable?? Curt Jutzi tektronix!gpp1!golem!jutz
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (10/18/85)
> > > > This also has nothing to do with the visual copyright.... > > Huh? Visual copyright?! I doubt such a thing exists - Imagine IBM copyrighting > not only their ROM code but the look (the top is a plastic rectangle with these > little metal pins sticking out... :-) ). > > My understanding of software copyright law is that someone can produce a program > with a similar visual look, and as long as no code is pirated from the first > program, no infringement exists. Otherwise Xerox should certainly sue Apple. > > Kevin Kinder A good book on copyright law is "The Copyright Book" by William S. Strong, an attorney who specializes in the field. The publisher is MIT Press. The book is a well-written, plain language explanation of copyright law and the reasons behind the law. According to Mr. Strong, the Federal copyright statute protects "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or a device." There are three criteria that must be met for something to be copyrightable: fixation, originality, and expression. Fixation is the act of putting something in a form in which others can perceive it. To be original, a work must be the product of the mind of the author (or minds of the authors). Finally, one can only copyright an expression of an idea, and not the idea itself. This all sounds simple enough, but it's not. There is the idea of a derivative work, which is one in which someone else's work is "recast, transformed, or adapted". According to Strong, "When a derivative work gets its own copyright, this copyright is limited, like all other copyrights, to whatever material is original with the creator." But he also says that "copyright in the expression of an idea will not be enforced so as to prevent other people from putting the idea to pratical use." I'm no lawyer, but my feeling after reading this book is that Apple might be able to patent some of the techniques they introduced in their user interfaces, but they can't copyright them. However, they can copyright particular screens and presentations. They could even copyright the order of operations that a program presents to the user. Even if DRI's interface doesn't look exactly like that of the Mac, Apple might claim that DRI's interface (screens and presentation, not the techniques involved) is derived from Apple's, and that DRI didn't get permission to copy the part of their interface that wasn't original. I haven't seen Gem or anything from Xerox PARC, but this is the only explanation I can think of from what I have heard so far. I have no idea whether Apple had to obtain copyright from Xerox to develop and market the Lisa and Macintosh systems; from what I have read, it seems that they copied a lot of the ideas but not the expressions of those ideas. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
bmarsh@noscvax.UUCP (William C. Marsh) (10/18/85)
>I believe a suit over piracy of video game code was settled a while ago >with damages awarded for copyright violation. The question of ROM copy- >right was left up in the air in that decision, but the copyright the >company had on the fixed scenario "come-on" screens was upheld. >Rick Sellens This decision in this case was in two parts. The court ruled in favor of the original copyright holder for the simple reason the screen acted EXACTLY the same while waiting for some 13 year old to put in his quarter. The space ships (or whatever they were) did the same things on both systems. The court threw out the second part of the argument which stated the ideas or visual images were also copyrighted because they depended on the 13 year old to make the exact same moves to duplicate the visual images. (Ever see a kid play PAC-MAN? :-) Opinion Warning -- My opinions follow, stop now if you have a weak stomach In MY opinion, speaking as an engineer and NOT a lawyer, the first decision is normal copyright law. If you make a copy of a video-tape, the visual images are exactly the same, thus violating the copyright law. (Simple case I know, but a program stored in rom is just like a video tape in a vcr.) The second decision seems to favor DRI, in that the two operating systems look alike, but not exactly. (How about all the space-firebirds rip-offs). I think this is a simple case of a BIG computer company intimidating a smaller company by a threatened lawsuit. (No wonder Jobs left :-) -- Bill Marsh, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA {arpa,mil}net: bmarsh@nosc uucp: {ihnp4,akgua,decvax,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!noscvax!bmarsh "If everything seems to be coming your way, you're probably in the wrong lane."
smithg@kcl-cs.UUCP (ZNAC346) (10/18/85)
In article <533@ihlpm.UUCP> kvk@ihlpm.UUCP (Kevin) writes: >Huh? Visual copyright?! I doubt such a thing exists > >My understanding of software copyright law is that someone can produce a program >with a similar visual look, and as long as no code is pirated from the first >program, no infringement exists. To the contrary, visual look is under copyright - the same law that covers photographs etc. I once received a mailing from a British company that specialises in recording screen displays for software houses so that there was a formal record ready for any copyright legal action. According to them, screen displays are easy to enforce under copyright law than object code. I would agree, however, that Apple have no greater case against DRI than Xerox PARC have against Apple, Kodak, Interleaf, Xyvision, Caddex etc etc who also use this type of screen interface.
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (10/18/85)
In article <3490@utah-cs.UUCP> b-davis@utah-cs.UUCP (Brad Davis) writes: >You can copyright how a video display works. Have you ever wondered why >arcade video games are simular but don't have the same screens? Wouldn't >it be easy to write a 'Frogger' or a 'Donkey Kong' from scratch and have it >look just like the real thing? You could try but you would be sued for >copyright infringment. Just like selling soup in a can that had a red top >half and a white bottom half and a gold shield in the center (Cambell's Soup). >The law even states that you don't have to duplicate only come close enough >that a normal person couldn't tell the difference if they just made a >quick examination of it. Ok, what if I wrote an exact copy of pacman and then gave it away. Would anyone be able to sue me? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or 915 Patterson Office Tower {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA Lexington, Ky. 40506-0027 BITNET: sean@UKMA.BITNET -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
berry@tolerant.UUCP (David Berry) (10/19/85)
> > My understanding of software copyright law is that someone can produce a program > with a similar visual look, and as long as no code is pirated from the first > program, no infringement exists. Otherwise Xerox should certainly sue Apple. > Once again, I might remind the net that Xerox can't sue Apple for anything because Apple licensed the desktop/Small Talk stuff from them and paid money for it. David W. Berry [ Tolerant still doesn't know what I think and this probably isn't what they think... ] -- David W. Berry ...!ucbvax!tolerant!berry
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (10/30/85)
> There is no such thing as a "visual copyright" per se.
This statement is not true. There is a separate form for filing what
the poster called a "visual copyright"; you file for text copyrights on
form TX, and for copyrights on audiovisual materials using a separate
form (I think it's called form AV). This latter is what is used to
copyright video game displays, etc.
All this is explained on an instruction sheet that comes with the copyright
forms which you get from the Library of Congress to file for copyrights.
--
Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642guest@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) (10/31/85)
Keywords:ASCAP If the top part of this article is redundant, read the bottom half. > In article <3251@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >In article <299@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes: > >If you spend 25 man years making thing, and > >someone else borrows your design, does it in 5 man years > >Business needs to be > >able to protect its R&D or R&D simply won't get done. The "Desk-top" represents only a small fraction of both systems. DRI produced a "GKS/VDI" interface even before the Mac was released. Agreed, Apple should recieve something for their contribution, but are lawsuits the best way to get it? > There is no such thing as a "visual copyright" per se. > Copyright law can be semi-effective for things like ROM code (eg. Apple > vs. Franklin, Apple II ROMs) but as people such as Compaq have shown, > you can still get around it. > >> I see Apple's possiveness of "Pull Down Menus" and > >>such as a little like trying to Trademark each letter of the alphabet > >>and expecting to collect royalties. > >That is an easy statement to make, I'd love to see > >you back it up with a good reason. > The problem is that there is no effective protection for algorithms in > software. Patent law expressly excludes them (unless you created > special purpose hardware to implement them) and copyright law only > protects their "form" (be it human readable or machine readable). > That's why Compaq (in the IBM PC world) can rewrite the IBM ROM code > without fear of retribution. > >>Patent, Trademark, and Copywright laws were designed to promote creativity. > >>In fact, the current laws, as used and interpreted by the computer industry > >>are being used to stifle creativity. > > > >Can you prove that? > Apple is proving it for us. Granted Apple was responsible for some > neat innovations (like the Quickdraw ROMs), and *appearance* of some of > the icons, etc. But consider that: > 1. It has all been done before. > 2. GEM is similiar but is not (by any means) a complete > ripoff of the Mac. > >If GEM had set up an agreement with Apple, they wouldn't be IN this > >position. They just took. To give DRI the benefit of the doubt, assume that DRI didn't know that they were copying a protected "functionality". Assume that they believed they were makeing sufficient changes to avoid a lawsuit. Apple sends a notice saying they want $200/copy (anybody know the figure?). DRI only charges $50/copy, and offers $2/copy. Apple sues. > George Hart, Computer X Canada Ltd. My backround is in performing arts management, music, dance, theater. There are an incredible number of parellels. Around the turn of the century, music composers and publishers saw the phonograph and radio as a threat to profitability. There are "subroutines" in music such as "12 bar boogie" which were difficult to protect with the usual copyright laws, because different melodies could be played over the basic accompanyment. In fact, there are over 200 "Jazz Constructs" which have the same basic protection problems as software. Rather than spend small fortunes in the courts, the American Society of Composers Arrangers and Publishers (ASCAP) was formed. When radio and international broadcasting created a similar threat to "R&D", Broadcast Music International (BMI) was formed. These organizations serve as "Central Clearing Houses" for royalty distribution. In restaurants, disco's, and theaters (or wherever music is played commercially), a basic monthly fee is paid directly to ASCAP or BMI, usually around $250 to $500 per month. When recorded media is sold, the publisher pays ASCAP or BMI. Both organizations co-operate with each other so the author gets royalties either way. The subscriber keeps a log of what he plays and sends that in with his payment. Each publisher, composer, and arranger recieves royalties. In this way, if an "easy listening" arrangement is made from a former "Top 40" seller, the Arranger, Composer, and Publisher of both the original and the easy listening version get royalties, even though the courts would probably not enforce a "Copyright Suit". A publisher/composer has "exclusive use" to the work for a certain period of time, though he still pays a standard "subroutine royalty" in case the "new release" uses one of them. Unpaid royalties go to a pension fund. The formula for royalty distribution is quite complex, even the payment schedule is a little wierd, but it does provide a very profitable and democratic means of rewarding creative effort. Similar arrangements have been made by the video cassette and film producers/publishers. Even the unions are involved in this distribution process. Notice that ASCAP circumvented the need for unionization of music writers. One of the reasons that the current Copyright, Trademark, and Patent laws are still so unclear for the software industry is that other industries have chosen other avenues which are more cost/effective that the courts. There exists an organization, the Software Publishers Association, which appears to be investigating a similar role in the software arena. Currently, there are a few companies which are reluctant to participate, but I would encourage BBS sysops, "Share-ware" authors, even "Public Domain" authors to get involved in this or any similar efforts taking place. Other organizations to "lobby" might be ADAPSO, IEEE, or ACM. The alternative is to depend on "Trade Secrets" and a fickle court system and a lot of heavy paranoia along with "copy protection" systems that can do anything from make an otherwise useful program useless to wiping out entire hard disk drive file systems. This is Rex Ballard, I've been moved to ..!ccivax!ccitv2!rb We are trying to get "remote file system postnews" to work on ethernet, until this happens I have to post as guest.