don@BRILLIG.UMD.EDU (Don Hopkins) (10/06/87)
MacWEEK, Sept 29, 1987 Page 9 Can a screen display be copy protected? By Rusty Weston MacWEEK Staff WASHINGTON -- A panel of officials from the U.S. Copyright office must weigh conflicting arguments by Lotus Development Corp., Apple and trade lobbyists about whether software source-code protection includes a program's "look and feel." At present, the Copyright Office does not act as an arbiter of originality. A software developer submits the first and last 25 lines of source code and is generally granted a copyright. The courts later determine if the code was stolen. While legal minds differ about whether the copyrighted source code is enough to protect a unique interface, such as the Home card in Apple's HyperCard program, few would argue that screen displays should go unprotected. That leaves a secondary, procedural question unresolved. The copyright officials recently held hearings to determine if the copyright rules should be changed to include separate registration of screen displays. Public comment on the matter closes Oct. 9, and the officials are expected to rule on the policy issues before the end of this year. Apple seeks separate registration of screen displays and program source code. Lotus said it believed that is unnecessary, that authorship includes both facets of the program. The Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturing Association (CBEMA), a trade group that includes Apple and IBM, said that an author should choose whether the code and display are registered separately or together. Ideas such as hypertext databases aren't protected by copyrights, but the text and artwork that make a hypertext database unique can be registered. For its part, the Copyright Office, part of the Library of Congress, doesn't want to drown in a morass of paperwork and screen dumps. "The intellectual property on any one screen isn't the issue," said Greg Jarboe, Lotus' director of corporate communications. "It's how the screens work together to make the application run. We think software should be treated as a single work extending to everything like a movie -- not just the dialogue." But Apple contends the user interface of its software gives it a proprietary edge that deserves separate protection. Larry Teslet, Apple's vice president of advance technology, visually demonstrated to the panel in a Sept. 9 hearing how three different source codes could be used to create an identical-looking on-screen object. In other words, the way software looks isn't the sum of its parts. "We were delighted to hear Apple's main point that a lot of work and creative thought goes into preparing what the user sees," Jarboe said. "That's consistent with what we've been saying all along. Although we disagree about a process issue, that's small potatoes." "You should be able to expect the screen displays were registered," said Ollie Smoot, acting CBEMA president. "If you want for evidentiary purposes to deposit screen displays, you ought to be able to do it as an option." Smoot said he doesn't think the copyright officials want to become arbiters of originality. "I'm comfortable having the courts work it out," he said. "Nobody has ever suggested a solution that will bring instant clarity to the problem of authorship." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright Office (202) 479-0700 Hearings were on Sep 9. Comments may be sent in till Oct 9. Address comments to: General Council Copyright Office Washington DC 20559 Refer to the case involving computer screen displays.