cs2531bn@charon.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) (03/22/88)
> I hope the courts throw this **STUPID** case out of the courts, and establish > the fact that a USER-INTERFACE shouldn't be copyrighted. > > rjung@castor.usc.edu Far too late for that already. The courts have already decided that the "look and feel" of a user interface CAN be copyrighted. Remember the lawsuit that Broderbund won over one of the Print Shop clones? I think Apple is on pretty firm ground with this one. Microsoft implicitly agreed that Apple had claim to "very-Maclike" interfaces when they licensed the technology from Apple. The big question is going to be exactly how Microsoft violated that licensing agreement, not where Apple derived the design of the interface from in the first place. If there was wrongdoing there, it will be decided elsewhere. Lazlo Nibble (cs2531bn@charon.unm.edu)
raveling@vaxa.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) (03/26/88)
In article <2543@charon.unm.edu> cs2531bn@unmc.UUCP (Lazlo Nibble) writes: > >Far too late for that already. The courts have already decided that the "look >and feel" of a user interface CAN be copyrighted. Remember the lawsuit that >Broderbund won over one of the Print Shop clones? > Being able to copyright "look and feel" is a decision the courts should reverse. Original copyright law didn't prohibit paper (e.g., book) publishers from using the same look and feel as an already- copyrighted publication. They could use the same graphic styles, font styles, page layouts. They could produce the same "feel" by structuring the document for its intended use (reference manual, tutorial, programmed instruction text, novel, ...). Most newspapers have similar look-and-feel. Could you picture requiring all newspapers to either pay royalties to one company or cease publication? Any attempt to restrict use of simimar "look and feel" seriously threatens the ability of EVERYONE to provide software, no matter how beneficial that software would be. --------------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@vaxa.isi.edu
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Resident Scatologist) (03/28/88)
I really sort of doubt that Apple really cares a whole lot if they win or lose the battle with HP/Microsoft. They are doing two things that make very good business sense regardless of teh outcome of any legal battle. I. Tons of free media exposure. Apple gets a lot more column inches than they could hope to buy.-- And they are column inches in very well read sections of the media. II. By suing members of the IBM encampment, Apple is really saying, "See we are just as good as you are". Not that the MacIntosh or its software were ever any worse than anything else. This could be the leverage that Apple needs to make the buyers for the Fortune 500 companies sit up and take notice. This is especailly timely in light of the fact that Apple has recently made overatures of cooperation with Digital. Don't misunderstand me. I don't like Apple's approach to doing business on this ground. I don't approve. It does, however, make very good business sense to do so in the current market. This is essentially the same thing that IBM did with its FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) factor to stave off sales of competitors when its PS/2 series of computers was introduced. IBM has since learned that there has to be substance to back up the FUD factor. Apple too may learn that they'll have to put their money where their mouthes are in the coming months. --Bill
sef@csun.UUCP (Sean Fagan) (03/28/88)
In article <5134@venera.isi.edu> raveling@vaxa.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) writes: >[original copyright didn't prevent same look and feel in books, newspapers] > Most newspapers have similar look-and-feel. Could you picture > requiring all newspapers to either pay royalties to one company > or cease publication? Actually, it's closer to copyrighting fonts, which, surprise surprise surprise, the laws of at least the U.S. allow (e.g., New York Times has a copyright on the Times Roman font, etc.). All Apple should to be claiming is that Microsoft and/or HP used their copyrighted screen layout (the icons, the pull-down menus, etc.) without liscensing them correctly. Apple has a right to do this. However, they may also be trying to sue for more (i.e., anything with a graphical interface and a mouse is infringing on Apple's copyrights). This is not correct. >Paul Raveling >Raveling@vaxa.isi.edu > -- Sean Fagan uucp: {ihnp4,hplabs,psivax}!csun!sef CSUN Computer Center BITNET: 1GTLSEF@CALSTATE Northridge, CA 91330 (818) 885-2790
raveling@vaxa.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) (03/29/88)
[I apologize for the long article -- Tried to send this as a mail reply to Brad Templeton, but an having trouble with bouncing addresses] --------------------------------------------------------- Regarding your comments..... Your analogy is incorrect. The media that books use coorespond to floppy disks, file formats etc. in software. Stories, on the other hand, do have copyrights on character's descriptions, powers, special features, personalities, and to a lesser extent on plots, theme ideas, settings etc. There are numerous precedents for this. This is a good point for discussion. I believe it's one of those areas where the truth is that neither view is entirely correct. It's something like the case in physics of demonstrating that black and white are special, and very rare, cases of shades of gray. My argument would be something to the effect that copyrightable should be the semantic content, rather than the form or mode of expression, of any copyrightable entity. How about this analogy: Baseball game broadcasts are copyrighted. What they actually copyright is the description of a specific game. They don't protect, for example, the ability of an announcer to speak rather than to sing, or the ability to display an image magnified by use of a telephoto zoom lens. A small example of software content would be the semantics of a menu, rather than its appearance, mode of creation/deletion, or mode of entry selection. Probably the best illustration of this difference is our project's software, applying AI to the user interface. The application defines a knowledge base including, for example, the inforation that a "situation display" for a naval briefing requires qualification to choose one of five geographic areas or one or more of perhaps 300 ships. The user interface reasons automatically that the best way to select this qualification is to offer the user a multiple-choice menu for the small number of regions and a text field available for typing the names of ships. It creates the input request form as a popup, and chooses its format to suit the inforation needed. This information can vary at any given moment as a function of curren context in the application domain. On a purely output level, our user interface software chooses dynamically how to present information. For example, if the user wants to see what ships are not ready for combat, the user interface may either highlight icons on a map, format a table of readiness information, or generate a natural language summary. Again, its decisions depend on the current dialog context. I think there's no doubt that the application contents should be copyrightable. To our UIMS, the application semantics are defined only in a knowledge base. The modes interaction are based on dynamic reasoning, and are not fully defined until their use. Then there's the counterexample of an application such as emacs, where the application and its user interface are virtually identical. I'd still argue that an onscreen editor's modes of interaction should be uncopyrightable, but that the instantiation of them in a particular editor should be. This gets into a VERY murky shade of gray. I'm aware of at least some of the legal precedents, but believe that application to the look and feel of software should be invalid and deserves more careful judicial review. --------------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@vaxa.isi.edu
jcmorris@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Joseph C. Morris) (03/30/88)
In article <2543@charon.unm.edu> cs2531bn@unmc.UUCP (Lazlo Nibble) writes: [speaking about the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit] >Far too late for that already. The courts have already decided that the "look >and feel" of a user interface CAN be copyrighted. Remember the lawsuit that >Broderbund won over one of the Print Shop clones? Not quite. There was a settlement (singular, in several senses of the word) supporting plaintiff's position. I don't believe that there has been any action on that or any other "look-and-feel" cases above the district courts, so there is no major precedent established. One point made during the GEM and Crosstalk litigation was that the defendants didn't have the resources to wage a protracted legal guerrilla war and so didn't take the case as far as they could have otherwise. That's clearly not the case here. > Microsoft implicitly >agreed that Apple had claim to "very Maclike" interfaces when they licensed >the technology from Apple. Maybeso, maybeno. IBM routinely buys licenses from vendors who claim ownership of some technology that IBM wants to use, even if many people feel that there is a good chance of a successful challenge to the ownership of the technology. It's a business case: if it's cheaper to get a license than to contest the issue in court, buy the license. An example of this is the license IBM bought for the Token-Ring design. Apple (or anyone) can _claim_ the ownership of the windows-and-icon concept; the question is whether that claim is enforcable. Joe Morris
rusty@hodge.UUCP (Rusty Hodge) (03/30/88)
In article <5134@venera.isi.edu>, raveling@vaxa.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) writes: > Being able to copyright "look and feel" is a decision the > courts should reverse. ... > They could use the same graphic > styles, font styles, page layouts. > Most newspapers have similar look-and-feel. Could you picture > requiring all newspapers to either pay royalties to one company > or cease publication? Most newspapers *buy* their fonts from the same companies. They do not copy these fonts. (Just like the LW+ fonts- some are licensed from ITC..) And I disagree that newpapers have similar looks & feels. In Southern California, the 3 big papers, LA Times, LA Herald-Examiner and the Orange County Register look completely different. Can you imagine newspaper designers being original? -- Rusty Hodge, HCR Inc, 1588 N. Batavia St. Orange, CA 92667 (714) 974-6300 rusty@hodge.cts.com [ccicpg!arnold crash]!hodge!rusty FAX (714) 921-8038 uucp: (714) 921-1090 (login: nuucp) Dial-A-Joke (714) 966-0976
darryl@ism780c.UUCP (Darryl Richman) (04/01/88)
In article <5134@venera.isi.edu> raveling@vaxa.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) writes: >In article <2543@charon.unm.edu> cs2531bn@unmc.UUCP (Lazlo Nibble) writes: >> >>Far too late for that already. The courts have already decided that the "look >>and feel" of a user interface CAN be copyrighted. Remember the lawsuit that >>Broderbund won over one of the Print Shop clones? >> > Being able to copyright "look and feel" is a decision the > courts should reverse. > > Original copyright law didn't prohibit paper (e.g., book) > publishers from using the same look and feel as an already- > copyrighted publication. They could use the same graphic > styles, font styles, page layouts. They could produce the > same "feel" by structuring the document for its intended use > (reference manual, tutorial, programmed instruction text, > novel, ...). What you are having difficulty distinguishing (and you are certainly not alone, because I'm not sure I understand it either) is that you may NOT copyright an idea, merely an implementation. And if the US were really following the international copyright conventions, fonts would be copyrightable also (they are in western europe, for example). You have to get the owner's permission to use them. So, while a book, a table of contents, a glossary, or an index, is an idea, which you can copy freely, a particular example (say from some technical manual) is copyrightable as a literary work. Also, the history of look and feel copyrights is an outgrowth of audiovisual copyrights. In my previous (long) article I included a successful suit from 1948; this is not the earliest one by far. Copyright law WAS invented to cover situations like this; the problem is that no one seems to be able to describe "like" very well. > Any attempt to restrict use of simimar "look and feel" > seriously threatens the ability of EVERYONE to provide > software, no matter how beneficial that software would be. But the law is trying to balance this against what happens if there is no protection against copying. If you can clearly describe a line between illegal copying and honest development, I would certainly like to hear it. --Darryl Richman
rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.) (04/02/88)
in article <5147@venera.isi.edu>, raveling@vaxa.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) says: > > I'm aware of at least some of the legal precedents, but > believe that application to the look and feel of software > should be invalid and deserves more careful judicial review. In response to this entire Apple computer thing, I think the whole issue is a joke. If council for the defense had done a little invistigation they would have gotten off scott free. It would seem that the crucial point of plaintiffs case rested on the "trash can". The duplication of the aformentioned idea, combined with the concept of "dragging" opjects into said can <ack! arg, pffth, yuck> was the crux of Apple's successful snatch at their compitition's profits. It would seem, however the idea did NOT first show it's ugly little head within the hallowed halls of Apple Computer Inc. Several years before the LISA fiasco, and it's ill gotten, though rather slick, resurection from the grave of miss priced oblivion [i.e. the Mac.] it seems there was an insignificant little company with an absurd name [ i.e. WANG Computers Inc. ] which produced a dedicated word processor whith a graphic representation of a certain common feature of many offices. This system wasn't very popular, and therefore didn't sell well, and decended into the depths of marketing hell, where it was promptly forgotten. It would seem that if a certain rediculously named corporation were to need a financial boost, [or if it's CEO decided to do something entertaining to break up the monotany of a borring fiscal quarter] it could take a certain body of precident developed by Apple Computer Inc. and drop it back in their lap like a dead skunk. Then again, probably not. In order for any of this to happen someone would have to do their homework. Cest' La Vie` Rob.
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (04/06/88)
In article <185@tron.UUCP> carson@tron.UUCP (Dana Carson) writes: >In article <1158@csun.UUCP>, sef@csun.UUCP (Sean Fagan) writes: >> Actually, it's closer to copyrighting fonts, which, surprise surprise >> surprise, the laws of at least the U.S. allow (e.g., New York Times has a >> copyright on the Times Roman font, etc.). All Apple should to be claiming > Gak. Can you say wrong ? Times-Roman (tm) is a registered trademark owned by mumblemumble (some english type foundy). It was created for the London Times in the mid 20th century. A font DESIGN cannot be copyrighted. A font NAME can be trademarked. This applies to America. It definitly does not apply to Behrner convention countries. Anybody know which are Behrner convention countries ? -- Remember me. Poke my boatman. richard@gryphon.CTS.COM rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard