tower@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) (06/08/89)
I've heard that a lot of you are unhappy with your company's look and feel suit, and that you can't quit in protest! Here's an idea: Circulate an internal petition protesting the suit. Only Apple Employees can sign. Arrange a meeting with your company's executive committee. Present it to them. Tell them how many of the employees are unhappy. Tell them why Apple should drop the suit. Tell them to drop the suit. Needn't publicize it outside, though you can let your friends know that you took a stand! And, if Apple is as wonderful a company as it's made out to be, you'll be respected, not harrassed, for your position. Non-Apple Employees: Make sure your friends who work for Apple get a copy of this! thanx -len
wrs@apple.com (Walter Smith) (06/15/89)
In article <8906080252.AA02091@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu> tower@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes: > Circulate an internal petition protesting the suit. Only Apple > Employees can sign. Arrange a meeting with your company's executive > committee. Present it to them. Tell them how many of the employees > are unhappy. Tell them why Apple should drop the suit. Tell them to > drop the suit. Avoiding any comments on The Lawsuit itself, to keep Apple's many lawyers off my back, I would nevertheless like to make a meta-comment. I question the basic premise of the above exhortation. Look and feel copyright is an unclear legal concept. If The Lawsuit is dropped, it will remain an unclear legal concept until someone else brings a suit over it (and, presumably, suffers the loss of GNU support, should they be unlucky enough to be a hardware manufacturer). Delaying the process of clarification in this way does not seem realistic or productive to me. In particular, dropping the suit would do nothing to reduce the threat of hypothetical anti-FSF lawsuits. What matters is what people believe the result of the suit should be (as RMS, I think, has already mentioned), not whether people believe there should be a suit at all. The rhetoric of the FSF/LPF and their opponents cannot and will not take the place of legal precedent. The FSF's efforts should be devoted (and are, I hope, mostly *being* devoted) to altering the outcome of any and all look-and-feel suits; those efforts will be wasted if the suits are dropped. - Walt [ A personal indulgence follows. Please read carefully before flaming. Opinion: Anyone who thinks a good user interface is less the intellectual property of its designer than a system's source code is the intellectual property of its author must surely never have designed a particularly good user interface. If the FSF would like to design a GNU user interface and copyleft it, that's perfectly valid, and if they influence the Congress to amend the copyright law to limit the protection of intellectual property, that's valid too, but claiming that a user interface design is not intellectual property seems silly. *** I am not implying the validity or invalidity of any particular claim of *** copyright infringement. ] -- Walter Smith wrs@apple.com, apple!wrs Apple Computer, Inc. (408) 996-1010 My corporation disavows any knowledge of my activities on the network.
jeffrey@algor2.UUCP (Jeffrey Kegler) (06/15/89)
In article <2376@internal.Apple.COM> wrs@apple.com (Walter Smith) writes: > Opinion: Anyone who thinks a good user interface is less the intellectual >property of its designer than a system's source code is the intellectual >property of its author must surely never have designed a particularly good >user interface. Two points I think might need clarification for some considering this issue. First, intellectual property is *not* a fundamental right. Second, a field in which intellectual property is non-existent can survive and thrive. To take the points in reverse order, my only publication of any significance is in mathematics. While I may be able to exercise a copyright over any clever phrasings, the math itself is not protectable. I can prevent someone from claiming he invented it, but I cannot control, or profit from, another's use of the math. Yet mathematics survives and thrives. If theorems and proofs were subject to some sort of intellectual property protection, mathematics would become much more difficult. Now, as for the first point. The Constitution deals with intellectual property not in the Bill of Rights, but in Section 8 of Article I, which enumerates the powers of Congress. The eighth of these is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and inventions." It is quite clear this is a power of Congress, not a right of the inventor. Congress is given a clear quideline as to why this power is given. It is *not* to profit the inventor but to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". This of course means money for the author or inventor, but that is only a side effect. Any privilege granted creates a lobby for its extension and perpetuation, regardless of the original purpose of the privilege. And in justifying extensions of intellectual property before Congress, its claimants always pretend that they are being deprived of a right, and treat the public benefit, which is the sole proper purpose, as a secondary issue, or even an irrelevant one. A point was raised earlier in this forum that extensions of intellectual property which do not "promote the progress of science and useful arts", are, because of this language, unconstitutional. This may be true in some ideal sense, but it is clear that it is up to the discretion of Congress to decide what extent of intellectual property protection is warranted, and it seems very unlikely any court would choose to overrule the judgement of Congress. But we certainly have every chance to influence Congress, and to steer them to return to the real purpose of intellectual property. -- Jeffrey Kegler, President, Algorists, jeffrey@algor2.UU.NET or uunet!algor2!jeffrey 1762 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090
captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) (06/16/89)
In article <457@algor2.UUCP> jeffrey@algor2.UUCP (Jeffrey Kegler) writes: >Now, as for the first point. The Constitution deals with intellectual >property not in the Bill of Rights, but in Section 8 of Article I, which >enumerates the powers of Congress. The fact that it deals with it in the actual Constitution, and not in an amendment (a set of which is all the bill of rights is) has no bearing on whether intellectual property is a right or a privilege. The right to vote is not on the bill of rights, and it doesn't make it any less a "right." > The eighth of these is "to promote the >progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to >authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and >inventions." It is quite clear this is a power of Congress, not a right of >the inventor. Actually, the text uses the word "right." It is quite clear that Congress has the power to regulate this right, but that does not imply that the right to intellectual property does not exist. > Congress is given a clear quideline as to why this power is >given. It is *not* to profit the inventor but to "promote the progress of >science and useful arts". This of course means money for the author or >inventor, but that is only a side effect. A "side effect"? It is not a side effect, but the actual mechanism by which "science and useful arts" are promoted. A few people can work to develop and extend a field in universities and research laboratories, where emphasis on finished products is minimal. By channeling the profit motive, this provision created an environment whereby people have a monetary incentive to put time and money in a development effort and come up with improvements to the field. > Any privilege granted creates a >lobby for its extension and perpetuation, regardless of the original >purpose of the privilege. And in justifying extensions of intellectual >property before Congress, its claimants always pretend that they are being >deprived of a right, and treat the public benefit, which is the sole proper >purpose, as a secondary issue, or even an irrelevant one. The constitution literally calls intellectual property a "right." It is not a privilege. It is a right inasmuch as it is a right to own a house or a car. I have yet to hear from a lobby for the extension and perpetuation of intellectual property. I vehemently disgree with anyone who believes that intellectual property as a right should not exist. A person's own creations are as private as any private property can be. They should certainly be owned by the creator, and in my view, the article in the constitution simply limits the right of intellectual property ("for a limited time") to allow for the public benefit. It is paradoxical to argue that, with the decidedly individualistic bent of the Constitution, the original intent was for the public benefit to be the main goal of intellectual property protection. >A point was raised earlier in this forum that extensions of intellectual >property which do not "promote the progress of science and useful arts", >are, because of this language, unconstitutional. This raises another question: who decides whether look-and-feel copyright promotes or hinders the progress of science and useful arts? I think that some degree of protection is beneficial to progress overall. The Macintosh interface is not the be-all and end-all of user interfaces. What incentives will developers have in 2000 or 2010 to develop improved user interfaces (voice-recognition/motion detection/3D imaging/whatever) if their efforts can be legally and easily copied? As I see it, for the sake of allowing PCs to work like Macintoshes now, the foundation of intellectual property protection (the incentive to develop bigger and better things) is being undermined. Sure, a few researchers will continue to develop stuff in "ivory-tower" universities and laboratories, but it takes the profit motive to go all the way to finished product. Besides, university-developed technologies is generally geared towards the needs of scientists and engineers and not towards the public as a whole. If universities and research labs were the only place where development of technologies was being done, we probably wouldn't have the simple desktop computer yet. > This may be true in some >ideal sense, but it is clear that it is up to the discretion of Congress to >decide what extent of intellectual property protection is warranted, and it >seems very unlikely any court would choose to overrule the judgement of >Congress. The first part is true. The second, however, is not. The Supreme Court overrules congress in various areas, and it hardly seems likely that legislation would be precise enough (it hardly ever is) and it falls again to the courts to precise exactly what is protectable and what isn't. >But we certainly have every chance to influence Congress, and to steer them >to return to the real purpose of intellectual property. Which is to allow people to profit from their efforts. The public benefit *is* and *should be* secondary - I don't like Marxist-sounding ideas. >Jeffrey Kegler, President, Algorists, -Ivan Cavero Belaunde Internet: captkidd@athena.mit.edu
krk@cs.purdue.EDU (Kevin Kuehl) (06/16/89)
> A personal indulgence follows. Please read carefully before > flaming. This isn't a flame. It is just how I see things. > Opinion: Anyone who thinks a good user interface is less the intellectual > property of its designer than a system's source code is the intellectual > property of its author must surely never have designed a particularly good > user interface. If the FSF would like to design a GNU user interface and > copyleft it, that's perfectly valid, and if they influence the Congress to > amend the copyright law to limit the protection of intellectual property, > that's valid too, but claiming that a user interface design is not > intellectual property seems silly. I think your comparision is a good one for the position of not having a user interface's "look-and-feel" copyrightable. By my understanding, if Apple would win this, then I think AT&T would be able to copyright the unified Input/Output system of Unix. And whoever came up with the idea of system calls could copyright those also. Why? Because to me, those are an operating system's interface and would have the "look-and-feel" of an operating system just like the Apple "look-and-feel" of its user interface. And you say yourself that they both are intellectual property and if I assume correctly, they are of equal value to you. This seems quite unpractical, very difficult to retroactively enforce, and would be very detrimental to progress. For example, I learned how to program on the operating system OS-9. It is a nearly identical copy to Unix in its high-level operating system interaction. The main difference was that it could fit where Unix could not. If AT&T could copyright its input/output system and someone else copyrighted system calls, then really nice pieces of software like this probably would never see the light of day in the future. This seems very scary to me because all I would have to claim is that whatever I invented had a "look-and-feel" about it and I could copyright that idea and prevent someone else from selling something similar. Oh well, just my two cents. Kevin
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (06/16/89)
In article <12038@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) writes, in part: In article <457@algor2.UUCP> jeffrey@algor2.UUCP (Jeffrey Kegler) writes, in part: > The eighth of these is "to promote the >progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to >authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and >inventions." ... [T]hat does not imply that the right to intellectual property does not exist. [The rest of his posting further argues his case.] The Constitution here dictates the means to be used to promote the progress of science and useful arts. It does not grant any rights to intellectual property. The Supreme Court and I disagree with your reading of this passage. -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) A person who seeks peace using weapons will never find it. [Thanks, Clayton.]
malcolm@Apple.COM (Malcolm Slaney) (06/16/89)
In article <6939@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> krk@cs.purdue.EDU (Kevin Kuehl) writes: >I think your comparision is a good one for the position of not having >a user interface's "look-and-feel" copyrightable. By my >understanding, if Apple would win this, then I think AT&T would be >able to copyright the unified Input/Output system of Unix. And >whoever came up with the idea of system calls could copyright those >also. Since there isn't a gnu.politics yet...and at the risk of being flamed.... There are really three issues here. The first is whether serious intellectual effort goes into designing a user interface. For example at Bell Labs there is a REALLY large group of people (at least there used to be) who did human factors experiments and try to come up with the best design for some phone company widgit. Just off the top of my head I think every other creative work (ie intellectual effort) is protected by some form of law. Should human interface people be any different? Look at paintings, writing, engineering, music, etc. Even software and algorithms can be patented these days. Look at the patents that Prof. Bracewell at Stanford got on his Fast Hartley transform. The second issue is obviousness. In retrospect a lot of patents are really obvious. But what matters in patents, for example, is that the new idea not be obvious to people well versed in the field AT THAT TIME. Finally, there is the question of how do you fit a new aspect of intellectual creativity into the present legal framework. There is no question in my mind that human factors work fits into the realm of intellectual property that is protected by the Constitution. I have absolutely no idea how to judge whether something is obvious. (But in the early 1980's neither the Xerox Star or the Mac were obvious to me.) And I certainly don't know how to do the legal work. Malcolm P.S. So what is the FSF position on patents and copyright? I notice that the Gnu Emacs manual is copyrighted but yet the Gnu Manifesto notes that it was probably good that early authors copied each other's work. Is the FSF against all intellectual property or just the ones that are obvious to them?
ds@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Dan Swartzendruber) (06/17/89)
Could we PLEASE move all of this Apple vs FSF stuff somewhere else????? I am definitely interested in this issue, but it doesn't belong in the gnu.gcc newsgroup!!! I am also very interested in GCC and having all of this political stuff getting mixed in makes it very hard to find the occasional :) technical articles posted to this group!
dsmythe@cup.portal.com (dave l smythe) (06/18/89)
Hate to burst your bubble, but unless you are an elector for your state, you do NOT have the *right* to vote, according to the constitution. We are republic, not a democracy. Most states didn't have a popular vote until much later, but it is still a state's right that has been granted. As for intellectual property: if you take my idea and improve it before I do, then that's the breaks. If you disassemble my code and include it in yours, then you should get sued. Dave Smythe I post at home, so no caveats necessary. (Plus, if I mentioned my employer I'd get hassled ;-)
lance@kodak.UUCP (Dan Lance) (06/21/89)
In article <5634@cloud9.Stratus.COM> ds@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Dan Swartzendruber) writes: > >Could we PLEASE move all of this Apple vs FSF stuff somewhere else????? >I am definitely interested in this issue, but it doesn't belong in the >gnu.gcc newsgroup!!! I am also very interested in GCC and having all of >this political stuff getting mixed in makes it very hard to find the >occasional :) technical articles posted to this group! I second this idea. Could we possibly moderate the gnu.* groups to remove this discussion? Very little light is being shed on any subject in gnu.gcc these days. Perhaps we can create alt.fsf.whine for all those disgruntled Apple employees and sympathizers out there. --drl Dan Lance / drl@kodak.com