bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) (04/05/88)
A lot of people think that small icons should be copyrightable. If your icons are, say, 16 * 16, then there are 65,000 possible icons. Anyone can simply copyright all combinations, and then prevent anyone else from using *any* 16*16 icons. This is obviously ludicrous. How many different ways can you make a trashcan, or an arrow, in a small dot matrix and not have them look similar? I don't believe there is a significant amount of creativity involved here. The same principle applies to using the mouse to bring up menus. Once you decide that the mouse will be used to bring up menus, how many different permutations are there? Let's see, there is pop-in, pull-down, slide-right, hmm, ... If these were copyrightable, soon all the easy ones would be copyrighted. New software, in their efforts to find a 'different' method, would have to use ever more complicated methods. How would consumers react if all auto makers used a different 'look and feel' to how their automobile controls worked? Say, GM has the gas pedal on the left and Ford has it on the right. Toyota, to avoid lawsuits, uses a hand control. Ad absurdum. Ideas are not copyrightable, only implementations are. I prefer the older working definition of copyrights on software: The source code and the binaries are copyrightable, the behavior isn't.
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (04/05/88)
In article <1522@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes: [edited for brevity] >How many different ways can you make a trashcan, or an arrow, in a small >dot matrix and not have them look similar? Not many. If there are a limited number of ways to express an idea, then the expression isn't copyrightable. For better or worse, a judge will be the judge of that. >New software, in their efforts to find a 'different' method, >would have to use ever more complicated methods. That's a problem. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, in England, someone patented the crank. Fortunately, our patent law was formulated to prevent such idiocies. Unfortunately, our laws aren't up to dealing with the new societal revolution. My opinion: Software with similar look and feel can be compared to compilers of languages with similar look and feel, and standards with similar look and feel. We as users have had to fight for standard languages and standard protocols. We now have to fight for standard user interfaces. -- -russ AT&T: (315)268-6591 BITNET: NELSON@CLUTX Internet: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu GEnie: BH01 Compu$erve: 70441,205
ralf@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralf Brown) (04/05/88)
In article <1522@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes: }A lot of people think that small icons should be copyrightable. If your icons }are, say, 16 * 16, then there are 65,000 possible icons. Anyone can simply }copyright all combinations, and then prevent anyone else from using }*any* 16*16 icons. This is obviously ludicrous. 256 I'd like to see someone copyright 2 combinations! There are 65,000 possible 4*4 monochrome bitmaps, but 4*4 is not all that useful. -- {harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: (412)268-3053 (school) ARPA: RALF@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU |"Tolerance means excusing the mistakes others make. FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | Tact means not noticing them." --Arthur Schnitzler BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA -=-=- DISCLAIMER? I claimed something?
bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) (04/06/88)
In article <1312@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> ralf@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralf Brown) writes: >In article <1522@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes: >}If your icons >}are, say, 16 * 16, then there are 65,000 possible icons. > > 256 >I'd like to see someone copyright 2 combinations! I stand corrected on this. I'm embarassed. Please don't send me anymore mail about it! (red-faced :-)
flip@pixar.UUCP (Flip Phillips) (04/07/88)
In article <1522@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes: >A lot of people think that small icons should be copyrightable. If your icons >are, say, 16 * 16, then there are 65,000 possible icons. Anyone can simply >copyright all combinations, and then prevent anyone else from using >*any* 16*16 icons. This is obviously ludicrous. well, lesee, I think I can lick all the 8*8 cases in about an hour or two, blast 'em up on a Pixar, take a picture, and we've got it, lets get to work ! [...] >Ideas are not copyrightable, only implementations are. As I recall, it goes, "ideas are not copyrightable, expressions of that idea are" . I think implementation is the wrong word here... But I agree none the less. [...] -- Flip Phillips {sun | ucbvax}!pixar!flip Pixar - Marin County, California
mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (04/07/88)
From article <1707@pixar.UUCP>, by flip@pixar.UUCP (Flip Phillips): > In article <1522@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes: >>A lot of people think that small icons should be copyrightable. If your icons >>are, say, 16 * 16, then there are 65,000 possible icons. Anyone can simply >>copyright all combinations, and then prevent anyone else from using >>*any* 16*16 icons. This is obviously ludicrous. 2 ^ (16x16) == 1.157920892373162e+77 > > well, lesee, I think I can lick all the 8*8 cases in about an hour or two, > blast 'em up on a Pixar, take a picture, and we've got it, lets get to work ! > 2 ^ (8x8) == 1.844674407370955e+19 >>Ideas are not copyrightable, only implementations are. Implement away. -- unsigned *Wayne_Mesard(); MESARD@BBN.COM BBN Labs, Cambridge, MA Once a Scribe hacker, always a Scribe hacker.
bayes@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Scott Bayes) (04/08/88)
>>A lot of people think that small icons should be copyrightable. If your icons >>are, say, 16 * 16, then there are 65,000 possible icons. Anyone can simply >>copyright all combinations, and then prevent anyone else from using >>*any* 16*16 icons. This is obviously ludicrous. > >well, lesee, I think I can lick all the 8*8 cases in about an hour or two, >blast 'em up on a Pixar, take a picture, and we've got it, lets get to work ! Lessee', that's about (mmmm carry the 2) 5 femto-seconds/image. Monochrome, of course. How much does that Pixar cost anyhow??!? :-) Scott Bayes "infinite loops, of course, take longer"
bayes@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Scott Bayes) (04/08/88)
Sorry, that should be 1/5 femto-second. I forgot you need an accelerator. Scott
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (04/08/88)
In article <1312@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> ralf@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralf Brown) writes: >In article <1522@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.UUCP (W. Bright) writes: >}A lot of people think that small icons should be copyrightable. If your icons >}are, say, 16 * 16, then there are 65,000 possible icons. Anyone can simply >}copyright all combinations, and then prevent anyone else from using >}*any* 16*16 icons. This is obviously ludicrous. > > 256 >I'd like to see someone copyright 2 combinations! There are 65,000 >possible 4*4 monochrome bitmaps, but 4*4 is not all that useful. 256 Either out of 65,000 or 2 possible bitmap combinations, only a small number of combinations would be recognizable as images of real-world objects and would thus be useful as icons. Wolf Paul -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 INTERNET: wnp@EESDES.DAS.NET or wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (04/09/88)
In article <1522@dataio.Data-IO.COM>, bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) writes: > Ideas are not copyrightable, only implementations are. > I prefer the older working definition of copyrights on software: The source > code and the binaries are copyrightable, the behavior isn't. I remember your reply to a user who proposed designing an Empire (your Empire) lookalike. You said that "look-and-feel" was now copyrightable. Make up your mind as to what side you want your bread to be buttered on. -- |------------Dan Levy------------| Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, | an Engihacker @ | <most AT&T machines>}!ttrdc!ttrda!levy | AT&T Data Systems Group | Disclaimer? Huh? What disclaimer??? |--------Skokie, Illinois--------|
lih@cunixc.columbia.edu (Andrew Lih) (04/11/88)
>In article <1522@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes: >>A lot of people think that small icons should be copyrightable. If your icons >>are, say, 16 * 16, then there are 65,000 possible icons. Anyone can simply >>copyright all combinations, and then prevent anyone else from using >>*any* 16*16 icons. This is obviously ludicrous. I hate to be picky, but aren't there many more icons than this? a 16 x 16 matrix has 256 pixels, then with each dot having an on or off state, would make this 2^256...which is a horridly large number. If we add color or gray scales to the icon, then we can obviously forget even trying to draw all the possible icons.. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= """"""" Andrew "Fuz" Lih lih@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu | @ @ | Computer Consultant UI.LIH@CU20B.COLUMBIA.EDU < ^ > \ - / Columbia University Center for --- Computing Activities ...rutgers!columbia!cunixc!lih =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
larryl@nvuxr.UUCP (L Lang) (04/12/88)
In article <1522@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes: >A lot of people think that small icons should be copyrightable. If your icons >are, say, 16 * 16, then there are 65,000 possible icons. Anyone can simply >copyright all combinations, and then prevent anyone else from using >*any* 16*16 icons. This is obviously ludicrous. Hmm... If there are 16*16 pixels in the icon, each of which may be on or off, then aren't there 2^(16*16) = 115,792,089,237,316,195,423,570,985,008,687,907,853,269, 984,665,640,564,039,457,584,007,913,129,639,936 possible icons, rather than 2^16 = 65536 That may take a little longer. Personally, I'm busy renaming all the stars. :-) Larry Lang "My fingers and toes are the only digital computer I've ever really understood."
sarrel@oboe.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Sarrel) (04/13/88)
In article <585@nvuxr.UUCP> larryl@nvuxr.UUCP (L Lang) writes: >Hmm... If there are 16*16 pixels in the icon, each of which may be on or off, >then aren't there > 2^(16*16) = 115,792,089,237,316,195,423,570,985,008,687,907,853,269, > 984,665,640,564,039,457,584,007,913,129,639,936 >possible icons, rather than > 2^16 = 65536 Well, if you want to get _really_ picky, then you have to realize that (on the mac, at least) an icon also has a mask, which is another 16*16 bits. That makes the total number of icons: 2^(16*16+1) = 231,584,178,474,632,390,847,141,970,017,375,815,706,539, 969,331,281,128,078,915,168,015,826,259,279,872 OK, anybody else want to show off the fact that they can use LISP to calculate insanely large integers? -=- Marc Sarrel The Ohio State University 611 Harely Dr #1 Department of Computer and Information Science Columbus, OH 43202-1835 sarrel@cis.ohio-state.edu In San Francisco, you can bay at the moon or moon at the Bay, but it doesn't make much difference which. Disclaimer: Hey, what do I know? I'm only a grad student.
jurjen@cwi.nl (Jurjen N.E. Bos) (04/14/88)
In article <10441@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> sarrel@oboe.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Sarrel) writes: >Well, if you want to get _really_ picky, then you have to realize that >(on the mac, at least) an icon also has a mask, which is another 16*16 >bits. That makes the total number of icons: > > 2^(16*16+1) = 231,584,178,474,632,390,847,141,970,017,375,815,706,539, > 969,331,281,128,078,915,168,015,826,259,279,872 > I'm sorry for you, but if you include the mask, you get 2^(16*16*2) instead of 2^(16*16+1) cases. This is a nice example of accumulation of errors. I'm not going to show that I can produce big numbers also, because I have at least three programs that can do that. By the way, it will give you some three lines of digits. -- -- Jurjen N.E. Bos (jurjen@cwi.nl)
jwhitnel@csi.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) (04/14/88)
In article <10441@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> sarrel@oboe.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Sarrel) writes: >In article <585@nvuxr.UUCP> larryl@nvuxr.UUCP (L Lang) writes: >>Hmm... If there are 16*16 pixels in the icon, each of which may be on or off, >>then aren't there >> 2^(16*16) = 115,792,089,237,316,195,423,570,985,008,687,907,853,269, >> 984,665,640,564,039,457,584,007,913,129,639,936 >>possible icons, rather than >> 2^16 = 65536 > >Well, if you want to get _really_ picky, then you have to realize that >(on the mac, at least) an icon also has a mask, which is another 16*16 >bits. That makes the total number of icons: > > 2^(16*16+1) = 231,584,178,474,632,390,847,141,970,017,375,815,706,539, > 969,331,281,128,078,915,168,015,826,259,279,872 > Let's get really picky. On a Mac II, there are 8 bits to each pixal of an icon, so you have 256^(16*16) = 323170060713110073007148766886699519604441026697154840321303454275246\ 5513886789089319720141152291346368871796092189801949411955915049092109\ 5088152386448283120630877367300996091750197750389652106796057638384067\ 5682767922186426197561618380943384761704705816458520363050428875758915\ 4106580860755239912393038552191433338966834242068497478656456949485617\ 6035326322058077805659331026192708460314150258592864177116725943603718\ 4618573575983511523016459044036976132332872312271256847108202097251571\ 0172693132346967854258065669793504599726835299863821552516638943733554\ 3602135433229604645318478604952148193555853611059596230656 and you can add your own commas :-). >OK, anybody else want to show off the fact that they can use LISP to >calculate insanely large integers? Lisp? Nonsense, bc! >-=- >Marc Sarrel The Ohio State University Jerry Whitnell Been through Hell? Communication Solutions, Inc. What did you bring back for me? - A. Brilliant
sarrel@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Sarrel) (04/15/88)
In article <7530@boring.cwi.nl> jurjen@cwi.nl (Jurjen N.E. Bos) writes: >I'm sorry for you, but if you include the mask, you get 2^(16*16*2) >instead of 2^(16*16+1) cases. This is a nice example of accumulation of >errors. I'm not going to show that I can produce big numbers also, >because I have at least three programs that can do that. By the way, it >will give you some three lines of digits. >-- > -- Jurjen N.E. Bos (jurjen@cwi.nl) Yes, I stand corrected. Now, if you assume that a color icon on the mac II is made up of an icon and a mask, both of which are 16x16 and have 8 bits per pixel, we get 2^(16*16*16) or 104438888141315250669175271071662438257996424904738378038423 348328395390797155745684882681193499755834089010671443926283 798757343818579360726323608785136527794595697654370999834036 159013438371831442807001185594622637631883939771274567233468 434458661749680790870580370407128404874011860911446797778359 802900668693897688178778594690563019026094059957945343282346 930302669644305902501597239986771421554169383555988529148631 823791443449673408781187263949647510018904134900841706167509 366833385055103297208826955076998361636941193301521379682583 718809183365675122131849284636812555022599830041234478486259 567449219461702380650591324561082573183538008760862210283427 019769820231316901767800667519548507992163641937028537512478 401490715913545998279051339961155179427110683113409058427288 427979155484978295432353451706522326906139490598769300212296 339568778287894844061600741294567491982305057164237715481632 138063104590291613692670834285644073044789997190178146576347 322385026725305989979599609079946920177462481771844986745565 925017832907047311943316555080756822184657174637329688491281 952031745700244092661691087414838507841192980452298185733897 764810312608590300130241346718972667321649151113160292078173 8033436090243804708340403154190336. Now, does anyone know whether those eight bits are really a color, or merely an index into a look-up table. It is quite common to use the look-up table format. In that format, the eight bits would point to one of 256 24-bit colors. The result is that you can display at most 256 distinct 24-bit colors. If they use the look-up table scheme, then 2^(16*16*16) would have to be multiplied by the nubmer of ways to choose 256 (not necesarily different) 24-bit numbers. This also brings up the question of whether two icons are the same if they look the same on the screen, but have different internal representations. Assuming that icons are considered different if and only if they have different internal representations, the number of icons on a mac II is (2^(16*16*16))*((2^24)^256) or: 352497141210838265713481483980028154643914213439664710603913 826057310702768547493650483302964736638624569681553952983739 732590494759431136198883386731161336668147068707652719076562 056460186083699855587212676703217390319386338332818891926201 584265318069231442392697268763999519611919803480232917034723 057637824103945897589345856311110781204353030326888187514464 352913713571717556327753629326947950763134366874696380043276 893902467353218558306108568659249137608267637760032658517165 573342106422773434757577997804990215598224124342750870843172 934551295704067075900020717046731355275335432173559875681076 975779467857964124560483600729656168710248662446500810590681 830381345185142229871868373945980198595129936003792361901975 768389050807333599890946870089994162477220200619925599314018 723573797084885850036669659306097304307741074074940180653658 450770943205347006923544001698241315783891536569167546822524 255627428950268220861122361857689319404333240786923864636423 780292915823845509040122842652771246674528169856593374975809 915925102014797665008774278345666191563143881075857435462890 675510524340756781953453733639195713232101136226155117651343 296272079557936053768928759383576728708813056793055212933599 754278019219975348914740908681134673577843597833830910857171 008072284250312267769851973643594046830415066139436466661994 548993636858018487767296858378032282161138338547424434092214 804502325631304177096253207949716727377373859839755200477399 781651249069168579319609024073978415366576503787580124091572 059395130853242824392901089090690365154306903599631529865877 499305168806703261450369876070529616967815564185509662018228 218579780200625368240156976209572227380655388321870974098595 026691965890259611994487589973737929731917233355497723948788 740508545327859224758228364037939866231931740209314323814184 370227604126822763829893548396254532412898071082609051342346 791309548675704473545497601746910070785284527450279949438532 294805445123688313787611196816167193276373081423151051205287 046835151820383202250786653139117317493642556212844343049454 372146094060086405209720295099554355680948888157014704194108 891565239711821728144232741409554280705943283816670482867719 728577034355258035447078345677740272066141434199824101092619 306983110108578748668407438514728576453309291695484037510844 947258937293554504737710599868010583420219027353676279009748 723681378389963973798981614548259709107328582027812829739376 428479733818386729806933990394293426130015951489680820100160 610223162428423676727412654054345531072966235596044133263521 405296181711754506578842550993346187227316979201855824371823 913976733011681606825166392147065669814659617313748089491317 423647529930783263677141170014042109302515381324422193350726 720968651846913030271569624397770537072865839497640551512918 164025464624527191347971790992102335775962779256460318241722 748740845621134400433973951910654736207171042506860408965809 287008425939191732838445314709522056008744823024885238670745 329077812649908653518446848070122080391082875645348545004863 915388760636114766656202302948114683518353740720605302159079 09311281816131942219776. OK, anybody want to figure out how many different _looking_ icons there are assuming the 8-bit look-up table described above??? Also, I ask to be corrected (gently) if I'm wrong. Thanks... :-) :-) :-) -- Marc Sarrel The Ohio State University 611 Harely Dr #1 Department of Computer and Information Science Columbus, OH 43202-1835 sarrel@cis.ohio-state.edu In San Francisco, you can bay at the moon or moon at the Bay, but it doesn't make much difference which. Disclaimer: Hey, what do I know? I'm only a grad student.
laba-4an@web3d.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) (04/16/88)
If anybody wants something to be read, don't put the word "copyright" into the subject. By now, everybody's kill files have been set up to automatically nuke anything having to deal with that word... -- laba-4an@widow.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) "Trademarks, anyone?"
penguin@athena.mit.edu (Ricky A Cardenas) (04/16/88)
=> mac II is made up of an icon and a mask, both of which are 16x16 and => have 8 bits per pixel, we get 2^(16*16*16) or => => => 104438888141315250669175271071662438257996424904738378038423 => 348328395390797155745684882681193499755834089010671443926283 => 798757343818579360726323608785136527794595697654370999834036 => 159013438371831442807001185594622637631883939771274567233468 => 434458661749680790870580370407128404874011860911446797778359 => 802900668693897688178778594690563019026094059957945343282346 => 930302669644305902501597239986771421554169383555988529148631 => 823791443449673408781187263949647510018904134900841706167509 => 366833385055103297208826955076998361636941193301521379682583 => 718809183365675122131849284636812555022599830041234478486259 => 567449219461702380650591324561082573183538008760862210283427 => 019769820231316901767800667519548507992163641937028537512478 => 401490715913545998279051339961155179427110683113409058427288 => 427979155484978295432353451706522326906139490598769300212296 => 339568778287894844061600741294567491982305057164237715481632 Come on people, this newsgroup is starting to look like comp.binaries.mac. Let's keep the numbers down... (no, I won't use one of those disgusting :-) (oops!) -- Ricky Cardenas, MIT '88 ARPA: penguin@athena.mit.edu BITNET: penguin%athena.mit.edu@MITVMA.BITNET UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!athena.mit.edu!penguin
asg@pyuxf.UUCP (alan geller) (04/19/88)
In article <10441@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, sarrel@oboe.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Sarrel) writes: > In article <585@nvuxr.UUCP> larryl@nvuxr.UUCP (L Lang) writes: > >Hmm... If there are 16*16 pixels in the icon, each of which may be on or off, > >then aren't there > > 2^(16*16) = 115,792,089,237,316,195,423,570,985,008,687,907,853,269, > > 984,665,640,564,039,457,584,007,913,129,639,936 > >possible icons, rather than > > 2^16 = 65536 > > Well, if you want to get _really_ picky, then you have to realize that > (on the mac, at least) an icon also has a mask, which is another 16*16 > bits. That makes the total number of icons: > > 2^(16*16+1) = 231,584,178,474,632,390,847,141,970,017,375,815,706,539, > 969,331,281,128,078,915,168,015,826,259,279,872 > Close, but not quite; there are 16*16 (=256) bits in the mask, as well as 16*16 bits in the icon, for a grand total of 16*16+16*16 (=512) bits total, or 2^512 which I'm not even going to think about calculating, except to point out that it's roughly 10^153. And, of course, on MacII's and EGA PC's, there's color! Alan Geller Bellcore Nobody really believes that my employer takes me seriously, do they?
chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) (04/20/88)
In article <558@cunixc.columbia.edu>, lih@cunixc.columbia.edu (Andrew Lih) writes: > >In article <1522@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes: > >>A lot of people think that small icons should be copyrightable. If your icons > >>are, say, 16 * 16, then there are 65,000 possible icons. Anyone can simply > >>copyright all combinations, and then prevent anyone else from using > >>*any* 16*16 icons. This is obviously ludicrous. The 16x16 size is unimportant, except for the fact that it may be an expression of a reasonable matrix for symbols of icon size. > > I hate to be picky, but aren't there many more icons than this? > > a 16 x 16 matrix has 256 pixels, then with each dot having an on or off > state, would make this 2^256...which is a horridly large number. > > If we add color or gray scales to the icon, then we can obviously > forget even trying to draw all the possible icons.. > > """"""" Andrew "Fuz" Lih lih@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu > | @ @ | Computer Consultant UI.LIH@CU20B.COLUMBIA.EDU Actually this is getting pretty far afield -- if Apple has their way, the "look-and-feel" issue will allow you to copyright an icon and all those that approximate it too closely are still considered copies -- perhaps as many as 1% of all icons will be similar enough so only 200 or 300 icon might fill the "icon space". And it is relatively independent of icon matrix size. So long as icons are "small", there cannot (from a human factors, user-friendly, or whatever perspective) be more than a few hundred distinguishable icons. In spirit, the original poster was right -- even if he blew it on the arithmetic (like my spelling?). Charles Marslett chasm@killer.UUCP ...!ihnp4!killer!chasm P.S. Does color matter in this discussion? It might expand the icon space a bit more, making the discussion more viable. Gray scale probably doesn't, but color might (is a colorized movie a new product or is it a derived translation?).
littauer@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Tom Littauer) (04/20/88)
In article <304@pyuxf.UUCP> asg@pyuxf.UUCP (alan geller) writes: > >Close, but not quite; there are 16*16 (=256) bits in the mask, as well >as 16*16 bits in the icon, for a grand total of 16*16+16*16 (=512) bits >total, or > 2^512 which I'm not even going to think about calculating, > except to point out that it's roughly 10^153. That would be: 13,407,807,929,942,597,099,574,024,998,205,846, 127,479,365,820,592,393,377,723,561,443, 721,764,030,073,546,976,801,874,298,166, 903,427,690,031,858,186,486,050,853,753, 882,811,946,569,946,433,649,006,084,096 153 or roughly 13 x 10 Computed by bc in .03 seconds on a previous generation Amdahl 5860... you should see a FAST machine! (BTW, this being scalar work, a Cray would be slower). Sorry for the irrelevance, but I got so tired of the Mac vs PC speed claims... -- UUCP: littauer@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,ihnp4,ames,uunet,cbosgd}!amdahl!littauer DDD: (408) 737-5056 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 330, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 I'll tell you when I'm giving you the party line. The rest of the time it's my very own ravings (accept no substitutes).
dee@cca.CCA.COM (Donald Eastlake) (05/03/88)
In article <585@nvuxr.UUCP> larryl@nvuxr.UUCP (L Lang) writes: >In article <1522@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes: >>A lot of people think that small icons should be copyrightable. If your icons >>are, say, 16 * 16, then there are 65,000 possible icons. Anyone can simply >>copyright all combinations, and then prevent anyone else from using >>*any* 16*16 icons. This is obviously ludicrous. >Hmm... If there are 16*16 pixels in the icon, each of which may be on or off, >then aren't there > 2^(16*16) = 115,792,089,237,316,195,423,570,985,008,687,907,853,269, > 984,665,640,564,039,457,584,007,913,129,639,936 >possible icons, rather than > 2^16 = 65536 (1) Copyrighting protects only against copying. Even if there were only 65,000 of them, you have to show that someone COPIED to get them on copyright infringement. Anyone who makes one up independently is not violating your copyright. (2) If you are thinking of tradmarking them, it would be a bit hard to show that in the mind of the product's audience, each and every possible icon is associated with and identifies you as the source. (3) Even if you could tradmark them all or print a copyrighted book of them all and force everyone to look at it ( so they would be "copying" if they used on), you still would not win, in my opinion, as icons are the only way to do a number of things on many systems. The courts have had no problem in declaring that you can't stop someone from using the only, or one of a few, functional ways of doing something just by copyright. You need something much stronger like a patent for that. This is one reason why the general rule is that when you copyright something, the "title" is not protected. Titles tend to be short and there are not enough of them to go around if they all have to be unique. Seems to me that an icon is like a title in many ways. Of course, some well known and easily recognizable titles may have become legitimate trademarks. -- +1 617-969-9570 Donald E. Eastlake, III ARPA: dee@CCA.CCA.COM usenet: {cbosg,decvax,linus}!cca!dee P. O. Box N, MIT Branch P. O., Cambridge, MA 02139-0903 USA