rms@AI.MIT.EDU (06/10/89)
I disagree. Apple does not want to "take away people's freedom to write
software" in the general sense. They DO wish to prohibit people from
writing software that infringes on their intellectual property rights.
This is a distinction without a difference. Extending the definition
of property rights *is* taking away someone else's freedom.
The American Indians considered land to be common property. They did
not try to bar the English from using the land. But the English, once
established, started claiming to own land which the Indians had always
used. When they acted to prevent infringement of their property
rights, they were taking away the traditional freedom of the Indians.
Not much later, the gentry in England started building fences around
the land that small farmers had traditionally used, but had no deeds
for. (They had never needed any.) The small farmers, kicked out to
make way for more profitable kinds of farming, were left without
means. This was called "simple enforcement of property rights". Now
historians call it "enclosure".
The text quoted above is misleading in another way as well: it speaks
of "intellectual property rights" as if their existence and
extent were generally accepted and uncontroversial.
In fact, this is precisely what the controversy is about. What property
rights does Apple have? What property rights should Apple have?
Apple is claiming a kind of property which three years ago was considered
outrageous but far-fetched by nearly everyone in the field. Most still
consider it outrageous, but they are learning that they can't afford
to consider it far-fetched.
The question of whether Apple does have a new kind of property will be
decided first by judges, then by Congress and by public opinion. We
are working to influence all of these.
However, debating this result is like debating who will win an
election. The important issue is who *should* win. That is what
people need to make up their minds about.
The Constitution itself might suggest a criterion: it says that the
purpose of copyright is, "To promote the progress of science and
useful arts." In other words, if user-interface copyright actually
impedes progress as many people in the field believe, it is
unconstitutional.kelvin@cs.utexas.edu (Kelvin Thompson) (06/11/89)
In article <8906100346.AA02699@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>, rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: > > [Quote by somebody else and followup: counter-examples from history.] > > The text quoted above is misleading in another way as well: it speaks > of "intellectual property rights" as if their existence and > extent were generally accepted and uncontroversial. > In fact, this is precisely what the controversy is about. I believe I've heard RMS say he agrees in principle with patents and copyrights as applied to their traditional targets -- physical inventions and written works. Under these conditions, it seems that patents and copyrights are explicitly protecting "intellectual property rights" -- they are allowing people to "own" ideas (or expressions of ideas) for a period of time. So the law clearly recognizes the *existence* of "intellectual property rights"....and perhaps RMS does, too. The question is under what conditions do they exist, and how far do they extend. > The Constitution itself might suggest a criterion: it says that the > purpose of copyright is, "To promote the progress of science and > useful arts." In other words, if user-interface copyright actually > impedes progress as many people in the field believe, it is > unconstitutional. Yes, an excellent criterion. But I think disallowing all copyrights of software would inhibit "the progress of science and art". Let's take two examples from fictional, parallel universes: [1] In this universe, light bulbs do not exist. A few scattered researchers have ideas about how to make light bulbs, but their prototypes are dim, uneconomical, and unreliable. One very smart researcher who has made a lot of money on previous inventions decides to make a major push toward discovering a workable lightbulb. He builds labs, obtains materials, hires workers; his organization spends years testing all kinds of materials, voltages, currents, atmospheres, bulb sizes, etc., etc. Finally, after a lot of work and money, the group develops an economic light bulb. It would be trivial for others to reverse engineer the bulb, but patent law protects the inventor -- he can get a fair return on his investment. Without the patent protection, he might never have made the investment, and a workable lightbulb might have taken years longer to be developed. With the protection, science progressed faster. [2] In this universe, mouse-based computer/user interfaces are rather awkward. A computer company decides that, instead of hacking out yet another awkward interface for its new computer, it will develop an interface that is really *right*. The company takes a lot of extra time and money to explore several different ways a mouse-based windowing system might work. It runs real, scientific tests on users to determine what methods objectively work best for a large group of people, as opposed to what a couple of programmers like best. Using the results of the research, the company releases an interface that is clearly the best around. It would be trivial for another company to reverse engineer the interface, but copyright law protects the developer. Without copyright protection...... [you get the idea]. [To reiterate: I stipulate that these stories are fictional.] A couple of years ago, I attended a talk RMS gave here at the University of Texas. I agreed with most of his ideas, but I couldn't go for Total Emancipation of All Software. I think Universe #2 above is close enough to reality that some copyrightability is best for all. During the talk's Q&A segment, Stallman said that with a gun pointed to his head, as an extreme compromise, he might be able to accept a relatively short copyright period for software. Say 3-5 years. This sounds ideal to me: it protects investment, but allows for public use of the software before it is ancient history (I think one sofware year is equivalent to about ten poem years; sort of like dogs and people.) Just think, if 3-5 years were the law, then Apple's look-and-feel -- and much of its ROMs -- would be going free about now. [I apologize in advance if I've misrepresented anybody's opinions.] -- -- Kelvin Thompson, Lone Rider of the Apocalypse kelvin@cs.utexas.edu {...,uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!kelvin
mccoy@accuvax.nwu.edu (Jim McCoy ) (06/11/89)
A few problems with an arguement: In article <136@yaxkin.cs.utexas.edu> kelvin@cs.utexas.edu (Kelvin Thompson) writes: >In article <8906100346.AA02699@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>, rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: >> >> [Quote by somebody else and followup: counter-examples from history.] >> >> The text quoted above is misleading in another way as well: it speaks >> of "intellectual property rights" as if their existence and >> extent were generally accepted and uncontroversial. >> In fact, this is precisely what the controversy is about. > >I believe I've heard RMS say he agrees in principle with patents and >copyrights as applied to their traditional targets -- physical >inventions and written works. Under these conditions, it seems that >patents and copyrights are explicitly protecting "intellectual >property rights" -- they are allowing people to "own" ideas (or >expressions of ideas) for a period of time. > Ahhh.... Do people own ideas, or do they own an particular general implementation of an idea? >So the law clearly recognizes the *existence* of "intellectual property >rights"....and perhaps RMS does, too. The question is under what >conditions do they exist, and how far do they extend. > Exactly. >> The Constitution itself might suggest a criterion: it says that the >> purpose of copyright is, "To promote the progress of science and >> useful arts." In other words, if user-interface copyright actually >> impedes progress as many people in the field believe, it is >> unconstitutional. > >Yes, an excellent criterion. But I think disallowing all copyrights of >software would inhibit "the progress of science and art". Let's take >two examples from fictional, parallel universes: > [thinly veiled example of Thomas Edison and the lightbulb deleted] >[2] In this universe, mouse-based computer/user interfaces are rather >awkward. Hmmm.... well, it looks like we have established that the "lightbulb" in this case already exists in a useable (but maybe not as well marketed as Apple's Mac interface will soon be) form, although just not smoothed out yet. > A computer company decides that, instead of hacking out yet >another awkward interface for its new computer, it will develop an >interface that is really *right*. This seems similar to a situation where I would patent a "soft-light" bulb a few months after edison introduces his bulb, this being fair because the "soft-light" bulb is just taking off some of the ackward harshness of the lightbulb that edison already holds a patent to. > The company takes a lot of extra >time and money to explore several different ways a mouse-based >windowing system might work. It runs real, scientific tests on users >to determine what methods objectively work best for a large group of >people, as opposed to what a couple of programmers like best. Using >the results of the research, the company releases an interface that is >clearly the best around. So maybe my fictitious company decides that the "soft-light" lightbulb THAT I BASED ON SOMEONE ELSE'S SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (the only thing id did was clean up this idea a little and market it heavily, while giving no credit to the people who did the real work "...to promote the progress of science and usefull arts")is preferred by users more that the harsh, ackward light that SOMEONE ELSE INVENTED. > It would be trivial for another company to >reverse engineer the interface, It would be trivial for someone else to reverse engineer the thin film of coating on the light that was my only contribution to "the progress of science and the usefull arts". > but copyright law protects the >developer. But not in this case. I as little ability to prevent someone from making a "soft-light" lightbulb as I do in preventing someone from making a blue colored lightbulb and then claiming rights to any other lightbulb that is blue. > Without copyright protection...... [you get the idea]. Yeah, i get the idea. The idea is that copyright laws in look and feel are good because they allow some company to maek a few minor modifications in something (under licsence) and then sitting back on my laurels (and making lots of money in the process) as everyone else is prevented from doing anything that is even vaguely similar to my work, because I own the rights to the "idea" of my market-researched modifications to another idea that wasn't even mine in the first place. "[T]he progress of science and the usefull arts" has been thwarted, because no one else can try to derive something better or more usefull from my "market-researched modifications to someone else's idea" unless I can demand a cut of the potential profits of such a venture. By the time others can use my ideas in any way, shape, or form , the ideas are pathetically obsolete and useless to the "progress of science and the usefull arts". > >[To reiterate: I stipulate that these stories are fictional.] I shall make no such lies about thinly veiled situations that are of major consequence to the "progress of science and the usefull arts". You are talking about Edison and Apple. I was talking about Apple. [small section about a talk by rms] > >During the talk's Q&A segment, Stallman said that with a gun pointed to >his head, as an extreme compromise, he might be able to accept a >relatively short copyright period for software. Say 3-5 years. This >sounds ideal to me: it protects investment, but allows for public use >of the software before it is ancient history (I think one sofware year >is equivalent to about ten poem years; sort of like dogs and people.) A three (preferable) to five (more probable) year limit on the weakly supported idea of "look and feel" may be acceptable to some, but it still sets a dangerous precedent by saying that "look and feel" is something that CAN be copyrighted. This seems like something that should be done (e.g. writing to congressmen and senators urgin the modification of the copyright codes) only if "look and feel" gets a more stable foothold in interpretation of copyright law. This is less preferable because companies like Apple, Ashton-Tate, et al. have a LOT more money to spend on lobbying to protect their interests that we (those seeking software freedom) ever will. The best shot is an organized brief in the Apple suit, as the courts at least attempt to put petitioners on an equal level. > >Just think, if 3-5 years were the law, then Apple's look-and-feel -- and >much of its ROMs -- would be going free about now. Yes, and Presentation Manager, SunViews, X, and a host of other software systems would be non-existant (or only in the formative stages) because the law would explicitly prevent anyone from infringing on Apple's licsence. > >[I apologize in advance if I've misrepresented anybody's opinions.] > >-- >-- Kelvin Thompson, Lone Rider of the Apocalypse > kelvin@cs.utexas.edu {...,uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!kelvin [No apologies, no regrets.] jim ------------------------------< Jim McCoy >------------------------------------ mccoy@acns.nwu.edu | "...far too many notes for my taste" #include <disclaimer.h> | -Phantom of the Opera "To thine own self be true"
mark@arisia.Xerox.COM (Mark Weiser) (06/12/89)
In article <136@yaxkin.cs.utexas.edu> kelvin@cs.utexas.edu (Kelvin Thompson) writes: >[2] In this universe, mouse-based computer/user interfaces are rather >awkward....[To reiterate: I stipulate that these stories are fictional.] This one certainly is certainly fictional. Ever use the Smalltalk interface, or Cedar, or Interlisp-D, or even STAR? All pre-date Lisa and Mac, none were "rather awkward", each continues to surpass existing PC and Mac interfaces in some ways. [And all of which is irrelevant to the reasons for the Apple boycott, presumably.] -mark
kelvin@cs.utexas.edu (Kelvin Thompson) (06/12/89)
In article <765@accuvax.nwu.edu>, mccoy@accuvax.nwu.edu (Jim McCoy ) writes: > > >During the talk's Q&A segment, Stallman said that with a gun pointed to > >his head, as an extreme compromise, he might be able to accept a > >relatively short copyright period for software. Say 3-5 years. This > >sounds ideal to me: it protects investment, but allows for public use > >of the software before it is ancient history. I realize now I was mixing apples and oranges in my discussion. I think a 3-5 year copyright on the text and binaries of software is a good idea. I have enough mixed feelings about the copyrightability of "look and feel" that I won't state a position. I'm sure RMS was talking about software, not look-and-feel. > A three (preferable) to five (more probable) year limit on the weakly > supported idea of "look and feel" may be acceptable to some, but it > still sets a dangerous precedent by saying that "look and feel" is > something that CAN be copyrighted. I thought the Pac-Man case a few years back established that it "CAN be copyrighted". Didn't that case make it all the way to court and receive a ruling? > >Just think, if 3-5 years were the law, then Apple's look-and-feel -- and > >much of its ROMs -- would be going free about now. > > Yes, and Presentation Manager, SunViews, X, and a host of other > software systems would be non-existant (or only in the formative > stages) because the law would explicitly prevent anyone from infringing > on Apple's licsence. I've yet to see P.M. in action, but in my view (and Apple's, apparently) SunViews and X don't infringe. Is there a license or lawsuit relating to Presentation Manager? The big, deciding question is: Would "look and feel" progress faster with lots of quick, small increments (i.e. with no copyrightability) ...or with fewer, bigger increments (i.e. with some copyrightability)? I think the answer is not obvious. -- -- Kelvin Thompson, Lone Rider of the Apocalypse kelvin@cs.utexas.edu {...,uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!kelvin
pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) (06/13/89)
In article <5634@cs.utexas.edu> kelvin@cs.utexas.edu (Kelvin Thompson) writes: > A three (preferable) to five (more probable) year limit on the weakly > supported idea of "look and feel" may be acceptable to some, but it > still sets a dangerous precedent by saying that "look and feel" is > something that CAN be copyrighted. I thought the Pac-Man case a few years back established that it "CAN be copyrighted". Didn't that case make it all the way to court and receive a ruling? My personal opinion is that there is no need to concede anything on copyrightabiliity of look-and-feel; it is a totally bogus idea. On the other hand many disingenuous companies try to trick courts into admitting copyrightability of obviously ridiculous things like look-and-feel (Apple) and language syntax (Ashton-Tate). Apart from the intimidation value of such attempts to those that make them, they also count on the possibility of the court being tricked, usually because they are not technically proficient, into agreeing. IMNHO, when the League does present their "amicus curiae" brief, they can point out that there already exists in the law an established and ancient way of protecting look-and-feel, and it is trademark/industrial design provisions. (i.e. the Coke bottle and the NatGeo yellow border are *not* copyrighted). I would have, for one, no qualms in seeing the Mac's trashcan be a trademark of Apple's (and appropriate too -- :-> sorry I cannot resist pointing this out...), as it is indeed something by which Apple sw can be recognized. While trademark/industrial design protection is ideally suited to look-and-feel for computers (it was designed for look-and-feel in general), disingenous companies try to trick courts into granting copyrights where inappropriate precisely because copyright is much more stifling (especially as it is being extended to cover not just derivative works, but also similar works, i.e. those using the same idea, even if not derived from copyrighted material) and longer term; trade mark protection is by converse quite ephemeral. IMNHO there exists a case for allowing honest companies protection of their *merketing* investement, e.g. recognition, under the terms of the appropriate law, but it is very dangerous to let them get away with using the much stronger instruments designed to protect *intellectual* investment to stifle that of their competitors. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard) (06/15/89)
*APOLOGIES* Another gnu.philosophy posting... In article <1010@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > >While trademark/industrial design protection is ideally suited to >look-and-feel for computers (it was designed for look-and-feel in general), >disingenous companies try to trick courts into granting copyrights where >inappropriate precisely because copyright is much more stifling (especially >as it is being extended to cover not just derivative works, but also similar >works, i.e. those using the same idea, even if not derived from copyrighted >material) and longer term; trade mark protection is by converse quite >ephemeral. > This is an extremely sensible argument - Apple does (IMHO) have right to trademark its "look-and-feel", not copyright it. I second the request to have the league put this into their amicus brief. It seems that if anyone wrote a detective story with Miss Marple or Hercule Poirot as the hero(ine), this would be a true violation of Dame Agatha's "intellectual property rights", yet noone (even her - or her estate) should be allowed to copyright the clever detective story. Apple has a right to defend its trash can and a few other particulars, perhaps, but hardly the entire WIMP interface (or even the idea of a trash can - just the particular implementation). If someone goes so far as to create an interface so similar to the Mac that the proverbial "reasonable man" (something only lawyers really believe in) would actually be deceived into thinking WAS a Mac, this could be fairly seen as a trademark violation. (Is the Mac interface actually trademarked?). Does anyone know if this is truly the definition of a trademark? It seems reasonable. BTW, anyone who has actually USED the Microsoft Windows dog (where even a 20Mhz 386 is slower and more primitive than a Mac Plus) knows that this would be a joke. Apple is clearly a step ahead of Microsoft and should be putting its energy into keeping that lead instead of a pointless and dangerous suit. Perhaps they think they can take away more business by hurting their competitors than helping their own users. This is a clear loss for the consumer (where is Ralph Nader?) It also seriously damages Apple's otherwise well-earned reputation as a company for the common man. Isn't it a sweet irony that Xerox has finally now "sent [royalty] demand letters to several companies" [companies unnamed] for use of "Xerox copyrights covering scroll-bar use, window design and placement, menu design, and use of alert boxes" [MacWeek June 6, 1989] Is it time to start a boycott of Xerox copiers? ======================================================================== Richard Fozzard "Serendipity empowers" University of Colorado fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu (303)492-8136 or 444-3168
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (06/15/89)
In article <9411@boulder.Colorado.EDU> fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard) writes: # *APOLOGIES* Another gnu.philosophy posting... # # In article <1010@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: # > # >While trademark/industrial design protection is ideally suited to # >look-and-feel for computers (it was designed for look-and-feel in general), # >disingenous companies try to trick courts into granting copyrights where # >inappropriate precisely because copyright is much more stifling (especially # >as it is being extended to cover not just derivative works, but also similar # >works, i.e. those using the same idea, even if not derived from copyrighted # >material) and longer term; trade mark protection is by converse quite # >ephemeral. # > # # This is an extremely sensible argument - Apple does (IMHO) have right to # trademark its "look-and-feel", not copyright it. I second the request to # have the league put this into their amicus brief. # # It seems that if anyone wrote a detective story with Miss Marple or Hercule # Poirot as the hero(ine), this would be a true violation of Dame Agatha's # "intellectual property rights", yet noone (even her - or her estate) should # be allowed to copyright the clever detective story. Apple has a right to # defend its trash can and a few other particulars, perhaps, but hardly the # entire WIMP interface (or even the idea of a trash can - just the particular # implementation). # # If someone goes so far as to create an interface so similar to the Mac that # the proverbial "reasonable man" (something only lawyers really believe in) # would actually be deceived into thinking WAS a Mac, this could be fairly seen # as a trademark violation. (Is the Mac interface actually trademarked?). # Does anyone know if this is truly the definition of a trademark? It seems # reasonable. # Speaking of this, every "reasonable man" knew that Solar Pons was without a doubt a Sherlock Holmes "clone". "Look and Feel" ? Hell, yes. That was the whole point. Copyright violation? It is called a pastiche (sp?). It did EVERYTHING that "Look and Feel" software contention is about. It was DESIGNED to look like Sherlock Holmes, feel like Sherlock Holmes, appeal to Sherlock Holmes fans, entice Sherlock Holmes fans to spend money upon these books. It meets EVERY REQUIREMENT THAT APPLE IS USING IN COURT TO RESTRICT " Look and Feel". Sherlock Holmes, at the time, (the estate of Conan Doyle recently voluntarily released their copyright with the statement "We hope you will treat the image of Sherlock Holmes with the respect it deserves." [not by any means verbatum]), was fully protected. The right to emulate the "Look and Feel" of Sherlock Holmes via a pastiche was also fully protected. Disclaimers: I like the Macintosh I like gcc I work for a software development company a.k.a. "Hoarders" Don't you think Lotus 1-2-3 looks an awful lot like Visicalc? Good Night, jim -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim domain: jim@eda.com voice = +1 408 986-9585 fax = +1 408 748-1032