tiemann@arkesden.eng.sun.com (Michael Tiemann) (06/29/90)
An idea: Rather than getting involved in attempting to prove to judges
exactly how idiotic this junk is, why not make an end-run around the issue
with a technical solution that only involves programming.
Why not write a window toolkit that provides a programmable user interface?
I have been thinking about this alot lately, and will probably work on
something like it in my spare time (but you know how that goes). It does not
seem easy, but it does seem possible to separate the function of the program
from the style of the user interface, with the style being driven by some
sort of programmable sytle interface.
Nice try. HP and Microsoft tried to do this with a windows package;
they made it real easy to allow programmers make their UI look like a
MacIntosh. They also got sued by Apple. This was the (in)famous
Apple suit.
The users of programs written with this toolkit would then have the ability
to write their own "style file" (similar in spirit to scribe or LaTex) and
all the applications that were written with the toolkit would then conform
to that style.
The users of programs written with this toolkit *should* then have the
ability to write their own "style file", but the judges can (and will)
take that right away from them with the kinds of interpretations of
copyright law made in the Lotus decision.
Users could write their own style file to get any look and feel they want.
They could share the files with other users that don't feel like learning
how to program the interface, etc. Lotus would have to sue each individual
user...
Which they can very easily do. Also, it is not in the public interest
to have all the users waste their time re-inventing the wheel *every
time they want to use a new computer or computer program*.
It remains necessary for us to fight for every right we wish to
preserve. If we do not (and most of us, living in our ivory computer
towers have not), those rights will surely be taken away from us. It
is simply too profitable to use the law to make something artificially
expensive by creating artificial scarcity. Unless the laws are
interpreted to protect us, they can easily be used to screw us.
What is happening with copyright law now is just another classic case
of greed and exploitation. The question is: will we stand up to it,
or will we simply stand for it?
Michael