davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (04/06/88)
Let me ask the net a question, about the nature of the finder, and how
that applies to protection. This is NOT about any existing legal action
or copyright law, but rather about what manner of beast this finder
might be.
If someone writes a book and copyrights it, no one else can publish
that book, even if they reset the type, use another font, etc. I think
this means that trivial changes don't matter. The book is a literary
work.
If someone draws a picture, say a cartoon, they can copyright it. No
one else can use that character, even by redrawing the character in a
new pose. The character is a work of art.
If someone creates a computer generated sequence of images in an
arcade game (this is called the attract mode) it is protected by
copyright. This is the origin of the "look and feel" issue, and has been upheld by the courts. This is a work of art.
If someone creates a computer language, such as C, they can protect
their compiler but not the language itself. A computer language is a
user interface, and not protected.
If someone creates an operating system (call it MS-DOS) which uses the
same command line prompt and most of the same commands as another
operating system (call it CP/M), is it protected? I don't think so,
since many of the commands in CP/M came from a DEC operating system, and
DEC would probably sue anybody for anything.
My question:
Is the Mac finder a literary work? I think not. Therefore is it more a
"work of art" or a "user interface"? Is an iconic language protected
while a typed language is not?
Let's ignore the merits of the current individual suits and discuss
the question of why is/isn't a graphics interface covered by copyright.
I think if this was a non-interactive display, it would be called a work
of art, but I am not sure why a graphics screen used as a prompt for
input is conceptually (forget legal issues here) diferent from a text
prompt, or why mouse input is diferent than keyboard input.
I would like to hear other opinions about why the finder is a work of
art, or a user interface.
--
bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -mechrisj@ut-emx.UUCP (Chris Johnson) (04/07/88)
I think the question to be asked after Mr. Davidsen's posting is: "why isn't something like the commands and syntax of an O.S./programming language open to be copyrighted?" I cannot see any valid reason that they should be unprotected. The argument could be made, of course, that the substantive component of the work was not the creation of the syntax and commands but the implementation of the functionality which the syntax and commands happen to allow the user to call upon. Thus, one would need to demonstrate that the creation of these elements WAS a substantive component of the work that created the product and, of course, that it is an individuating element which could properly be the basis of copyright. These requirements seem quite reasonable to me. If such a set of criteria were recognized we might find that among those examples you cited, there are cases where the product SHOULD have been copyrightable. ----Chris