jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) (03/15/89)
Manufacturers Technologies Inc. of West Springfield, MA won a copyright infringement case based on look and feel (Boston Globe, 3/14/89, page 43 and 51). Defendants were CAMS Inc. of Plantsville, CT, and Chempro Data Sciences Corp. of Westfield (MA I assume). It's too long to type, but here are some quotables: "[Manufacturers Technologies Inc. President Thomas Charkiewicz's] lawyers were encouraged by software protection vigilantes IBM Corp. and Lotus Develpment Corp. of Cambridge." (They provided names of expert witnesses, at least one of which was used, and offered to help with mock trials, though none were held.) "What makes [US District Court Judge T.F. Gilroy] Daly's ruling significant and potentially far-reaching, suporters say, is that he based his decision solely on what is referred to loosely in the industry as the look and feel of software: how it apears to and is acted upon by the user." "`We don't want courts setting de facto software standards,' says Michael D. Kinkead, president of the Massachusets Software Council. `We want standards to be set in the marketplace.'" "Many software developers see copyright protection as harmful to innovation... While few advocate allowing copying computer code, they see no reason why someone should not be allowed to improve upon, say, Lotus 1-2-3, by writing faster code. "But Charkiewicz and others argue against that view, saying it fails to compensate program originators for their R&D and marketing expenditures. Lack of protection is what will hurt innovation, they maintain." No mention of the FSF, or their viewpoint on these matters. -- /jr jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr C'mon big money!
dsill@RELAY.NSWC.NAVY.MIL ("David E. Sill") (03/15/89)
Well, I suppose some position, either good or bad, is better than none. But any lawyer will tell you that one decision does not provide overwhelming precedent. I don't think it's really that important which way the courts end up deciding the L&F issue; I think the end result either way is that there will be enough people upset with the outcome to mandate overhauling the software copyright laws. If Judge Daly's ruling holds, development will be stifled by the requirement that each new product line have its own unique interface. This is obviously contrary to the user's need for fewer and simpler interfaces, not to mention an extra burden on the developer who has to go out of his way to avoid making his product too much like his competitors. On the other hand, though, if developers are allowed to produce "clones" of software products without regard to the effort the original developer put into designing the interface, then there will be little incentive for the development of new interfaces. Imagine a company like Xerox spending millions of dollars on research to come up with the Window/Icon/Mouse interface only to have its competitors incorporate Xerox's innovations into their product lines. What we need is some way to delineate between clones and compatibles. At what point does the spreadsheet become other than a clone of Lotus 1-2-3, whether by additional functionality, different behavior or appearance, etc.? I suspect there are few judges and lawyers with sufficient technical background to make this determination. As usual, the above is only my opinion.
mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (03/15/89)
In article <Q41D15FD@dsillpc> dsill@RELAY.NSWC.NAVY.MIL ("David E. Sill") wrote: >At what point does the spreadsheet become other than a clone of Lotus >1-2-3, whether by additional functionality, different behavior or >appearance, or if its name happens to be Visicalc:-) Which just confirms rms's point: One would be hard-pressed to find truly revolutionary, innovative, unprecidented software products. The innovation is marginal, but what makes or breaks it is the clever ways in which the designers integrate *existing* ideas/technology (using genuine innovation to fill in the cracks). This goes for Hypercard, Mathematica, UNIX, Emacs, and most certainly 1-2-3. If one accepts this premise, the stringent l&f copyright laws being discussed may well be the end of "innovative" computing. [ My, I do sound like quite the radical. Hearing yourself make an argument can certainly increase your belief in it. Sorry for the marginally relevant article. ] -- unsigned *Wayne_Mesard(); "I just can't grow parsley, and that's MESARD@BBN.COM all there is to it!" BBN, Cambridge, MA -AN
aglew@mcdurb.Urbana.Gould.COM (03/18/89)
>>At what point does the spreadsheet become other than a clone of Lotus >>1-2-3, whether by additional functionality, different behavior or >>appearance, > >or if its name happens to be Visicalc:-) Umm... I'm a believer in Free Software myself, but give credit where credit is due: Lotus' interface was a lot better than Visicalc's. To the underlying spreadsheet idea Lotus added one line scrolling menus with a built in help line, menus by highlighting, etc. I, at least, found Lotus a lot easier to use than Visicalc. I do not know if all of these "Look and Feel" ideas originated with Lotus, but I hadn't seen them in other commercial pacakages.
colburn@io.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Mark H. Colburn) (03/18/89)
In article <Q41D15FD@dsillpc> dsill@RELAY.NSWC.NAVY.MIL ("David E. Sill") writes: >I don't think it's really that important which way the courts end up >deciding the L&F issue; I think the end result either way is that there will >be enough people upset with the outcome to mandate overhauling the software >copyright laws. If Judge Daly's ruling holds, development will be stifled >by the requirement that each new product line have its own unique interface. >This is obviously contrary to the user's need for fewer and simpler >interfaces, not to mention an extra burden on the developer who has to go >out of his way to avoid making his product too much like his competitors. I, personally, am not particularly excited about this ruling. It would be kind of like Ford suing Chrysler becase they have cars which kind of look the same: the both have four wheels, steering wheels on the left side, two seats up front, doors, etc. That would be look and feel kind of things. >On the other hand, though, if developers are allowed to produce "clones" of >software products without regard to the effort the original developer put >into designing the interface, then there will be little incentive for the >development of new interfaces. Imagine a company like Xerox spending >millions of dollars on research to come up with the Window/Icon/Mouse >interface only to have its competitors incorporate Xerox's innovations into >their product lines. Competition like Apple, Apollo, Sun, HP, ... Imagine what would happen if all of those companies started using variations of Xerox's Window/Mouse/Icon interface... You'd wind up with things like Macintosh, Xwindows, Sunview, ... That would be pretty bad I suppose, so we should make sure that Xerox doesn't spend that money :-) Sombody should call up Xerox and tell them not to develop an interface, quick. A little late I think. Sorry for the sarcasm, but most of the windowing interface innovation which has come about in the last few years has been a result of the work done at Xerox PARC. Most of the work centered around Smalltalk. A lot of the non-bit-mapped interfaces also came from there as well, such as scroll bars, pull-down and pop-up menus, etc. >What we need is some way to delineate between clones and compatibles. >At what point does the spreadsheet become other than a clone of Lotus >1-2-3, whether by additional functionality, different behavior or >appearance, etc.? For the most part, the clone and compatible are used interchangably in the computer industry. And even then you have the problem of defining just how compatible. Computer hardware and software vendors use the term compatible because it has a better connotation that a "clone." Mark H. Colburn MN65-2300 colburn@SRC.Honeywell.COM Systems Administration and Support Honeywell Systems & Research Center
dsill@RELAY.NSWC.NAVY.MIL (03/21/89)
Let me first say that I was not taking sides in my previous posting on this topic, merely pointing out what I considered the two sides of the coin. Mark Colburn writes: >I, personally, am not particularly excited about this ruling. It would be >kind of like Ford suing Chrysler because they have cars which kind of look >the same: the both have four wheels, steering wheels on the left side, two >seats up front, doors, etc. That would be look and feel kind of things. Yes, I agree that it would be catastrophic for the L&F issue to get so far out of hand, but my point was that if it *did* I don't think it would be long at all before we realized that strict enforcement of such policy is detrimental to everyone involved. That realization would cause the kind of shake-up in our copyright laws that's necessary to really fix the problem. >Imagine what would happen if all of those companies started using variations >of Xerox's Window/Mouse/Icon interface... You'd wind up with things like >Macintosh, Xwindows, Sunview, ... That would be pretty bad I suppose, so >we should make sure that Xerox doesn't spend that money :-) Sombody should >call up Xerox and tell them not to develop an interface, quick. A little >late I think. > >Sorry for the sarcasm, but most of the windowing interface innovation which >has come about in the last few years has been a result of the work done at >Xerox PARC. Most of the work centered around Smalltalk. A lot of the >non-bit-mapped interfaces also came from there as well, such as scroll >bars, pull-down and pop-up menus, etc. Right, but my point was that from a corporate point-of-view Xerox lost out in a big way. Now, that was probably not a result of Xerox's inability to prevent the competition from "borrowing" their technology. >For the most part, the clone and compatible are used interchangably in the >computer industry. And even then you have the problem of defining just how >compatible. Computer hardware and software vendors use the term compatible >because it has a better connotation that a "clone." I intended "clone" and "compatible" in the true sense. I.e., a clone is substantially identical in every way to the original, perhaps differing in nameplate, color scheme, manufacturing technique, etc. Whereas a compatible is similar to the original in many areas, it differs substantially in at least one functional area. To reuse the already cliche automobile analogy, Fords and Chryslers are compatible to the extent that the major controls are similar; but they aren't clones, there are no Fords that look and operate just like a Chrysler. But let's consider Firebirds and Camaros. In most cases, they differ only in name, sheetmetal, and trim: they are essentially the same car. They're clones. And this is my point: whether you favor strict protection of corporate investments in R&D, or the free flow of technology and information, the current copyright law is inadequate, particularly when it comes to software. Remember, too, that it's copyright law that keeps free software free; and if that law is incapable of protecting proprietary software, it's also incapable of protecting free software. Personally, I think it's foolish to expect our capitalist society to become socialist overnight, just because of the Look and Feel issue. I support the Free Software Foundation as much as the next guy, but I'm not betting that the software industry will up and convert to the free approach anytime soon. The opinions above are mine. so.cial.ism \'so--sh*-.liz-*m\ n 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. (Webster's 7th ed.)