leblanc@ucbvax.UUCP (02/11/87)
References:
I was wondering if there has been any consideration of the possible
problem that MINIX has the 'look and feel' of another well known
operating system. I have read recently that there are some companies
that are suing other software companies for producing code that has a
similar interface as the suing companies code even though the internals
were written completely from scratch.
Perhaps this is not a problem because UN*X is too big? Or mabye the
'free' nature of MINIX is a deciding factor?
Emile LeBlanc
ARPA: leblanc@Berkeley.EDU
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!leblanchal@gvax.UUCP (02/12/87)
In article <17300@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Emile LeBlanc writes: > > I was wondering if there has been any consideration of the possible >problem that MINIX has the 'look and feel' of another well known >operating system. I have read recently that there are some companies >that are suing other software companies for producing code that has a >similar interface as the suing companies code even though the internals >were written completely from scratch. I'm going to try to be a spoilsport by sending the followups to this to misc.legal, where the discussion belongs and where it is apparently getting started. I've also posted this to rec.arts.books because of the topic and book review at the end, but no followups to there, please. The "look and feel" issue is a big one and is the subject of an important pending lawsuit involving Lotus and one of the 1-2-3 clonemakers. The question is the extent to which a company can protect its user interface. For example, many video games are protected by copyright. (Actually these are treated as copyrights on audiovisual works where the infringement is obvious, sidestepping the problems of software copyright.) But one certainly cannot copyright the "look and feel" of the pedals and steering wheel of a car's "user interface". Where pop-up and pull-down menus, spreadsheets, and other things fall is an open question (which is why there is a major lawsuit pending). There are also anti-trust implications if a copyright or patent is used to block entry of other firms into a market. Lotus and the clone crowd have hired lots of good lawyers, who don't agree of course, and the courts will eventually tell us something about what can be copyrighted and what cannot. These are things us non-lawyers will not be able to resolve here, so lets not try. Copyright law is a strange thing where common sense does not always yield the equitable answer, much less the one the courts actually decide (sorry--couldn't resist the cheap shot). I suggest that anyone who is interested read "The Copyright Book" by William S. Strong (MIT press, 2nd edition 1984, paperback edition 1986). This is a very well written book that discusses copyright primarily from the standpoint of the creator of copyrightable works (i.e. authors and artists will also find this very useful). Stone has good coverage of the issues involved in software copyrights. Much of the time, however, he points out that the law is not clear since there are ambiguities and unanswered questions in the 1978 statute creating software copyrights, and there is little case law yet to clarify many important points. Stone's book is no substitute for real legal advice, but if half of the amateur lawyers and copyright police on the net would read it before posting, we could be saved from lots of worthless advice, speculation, and debate. Hal Perkins Cornell Computer Science
fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (02/13/87)
In article <17300@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> leblanc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Emile LeBlanc) writes: > > I was wondering if there has been any consideration of the possible >problem that MINIX has the 'look and feel' of another well known >operating system... On a related note, it is my understanding that Dennis Ritchie holds a patent on the suid bit implementation, and patents are currently far more enforcable than vague "look and feel" copyrights. Does minix have a suid bit? -Fred -- =========================================================================== Fred Fish Motorola Computer Division, 3013 S 52nd St, Tempe, Az 85282 USA {seismo!noao!mcdsun,hplabs!well}!fnf (602) 438-5976 ===========================================================================
ron@unirot.UUCP (02/14/87)
In article <242@mcdsun.UUCP>, fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: > On a related note, it is my understanding that Dennis Ritchie holds a > patent on the suid bit implementation, and patents are currently > far more enforcable than vague "look and feel" copyrights. Does minix have > a suid bit? > > -Fred AT&T decided to let everyone use the set-UID bit without bothering them back around 1981. Mostly it is patented because there was a big drive to increase the number of patents that Bell Labs employees held for statistical reasons. By the way, the Set UID patent is fairly interesting reading. I found a copy in the back of the red Unix security book that I was looking through. -Ron
gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP (02/15/87)
In article <242@mcdsun.UUCP> fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: >On a related note, it is my understanding that Dennis Ritchie holds a >patent on the suid bit implementation ... It's my understanding that this patent was "dedicated" (hope I got that right) some time ago, meaning that anyone is allowed to use the patented process without royalty.
phr@mit-hermes.UUCP (02/17/87)
In article <341@unirot.UUCP> ron@unirot.UUCP (Ron Natalie) writes: >AT&T decided to let everyone use the set-UID bit without bothering >them back around 1981. Mostly it is patented because there was a >big drive to increase the number of patents that Bell Labs employees >held for statistical reasons. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be true. RMS spoke with an AT&T lawyer a few days ago, and the lawyer said AT&T never had any such policy. They let Idris and maybe a few others use SUID without the hassle of negotiating a royalty agreement that pre-breakup AT&T might not have been able to collect anything from anyway, but future would-be SUID users have to make their own arrangements. AT&T is cooperating with the IEEE POSIX committee, so I don't think other "look and feel" issues will cause trouble for Unix imitations. Related: Dan Bricklin (author of Visi-Calc) is helping the Lotus suit defendants by collecting a list of other software and hardware lookalikes (e.g. "Hayes compatible" modems, etc.) to present at the trial. If you know of some, please send them to send-in-the-clones@prep.ai.mit.edu (internet) or mit-eddie!mit-prep!send-in-the-clones (uucp) and we will pass them on. (Please don't send them directly to me and don't post them here). A longer message about this is going on some other newsgroups but I decided it was not Minix-related enough to post the whole thing here.
ron@brl-sem.UUCP (02/18/87)
In article <2802@mit-hermes.AI.MIT.EDU>, phr@mit-hermes.AI.MIT.EDU (Paul Rubin) writes: > In article <341@unirot.UUCP> ron@unirot.UUCP (Ron Natalie) writes: > >AT&T decided to let everyone use the set-UID bit without bothering > >them back around 1981. Mostly it is patented because there was a > >big drive to increase the number of patents that Bell Labs employees > >held for statistical reasons. > > Sadly, this doesn't seem to be true. RMS spoke with an AT&T lawyer a > few days ago, and the lawyer said AT&T never had any such policy. Hmm, I seem to recall Al Arms (if that is his name, my memory is foggy) announcing that they were going to let the setuid bit go. It was right after he congratulated people for the rather stunning defense of the trademark.
patwood@esquire.UUCP (02/28/87)
In article <5632@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > In article <242@mcdsun.UUCP> fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: > >On a related note, it is my understanding that Dennis Ritchie holds a > >patent on the suid bit implementation ... > > It's my understanding that this patent was "dedicated" > (hope I got that right) some time ago, meaning that anyone > is allowed to use the patented process without royalty. All patents are "dedicated to the public" in that the information in them is published and available from the US Patent & Copyright Office. The *information* is public; however, the right to use it is still owned by the inventor and must be licensed. I'm not saying that AT&T does or doesn't require someone to license the SUID patent to use it; that's up to them to decide. By the way, if you're interested in reading the patent itself, it is listed in Appendix L of "UNIX System Security" by Pat Wood (me, I humbly admit) and Steve Kochan, my partner, published by Howard Sams and Company (formerly published by Hayden Book Co., now defunct). Pat Wood Pipeline Associates, Inc. {bellcore,motown,cmcl2!esquire}!phw5!phw