ramsdell@linus.mitre.org (John D. Ramsdell) (10/18/90)
Enclosed are some corrections to my initial plead, and pointers to well thought out papers on the issue of interface copyrights. Lotus is trying to make it illegal to write software even partially compatible in its behavior with existing software. If you write a program that does a similar job, they will sue you. The threat is real; Lotus is currently suing Borland over Quattro not because it implements the same interface, but because you can customize the interface to emulate Lotus 1-2-3! By distributing promotional copies of Lotus Improv, NeXT Inc. is aiding and abiding a company that, in my opinion, engages in monopolistic practices. I urge you to refuse to buy NeXT offerings that include a free copy of Lotus Improv. In practice, this means simply waiting until 1991 to place your order. If we do not take a stand now and make our concerns clear to the NeXT management, they may be the next to sue. Some of the responses to my initial plead revealed enormous ignorance about the issue of interface copyright. I hope you all will read this year's November and May issues of the Communications of the ACM. An informed and active user community is our only hope for protection against forces of greed. John D. Ramsdell P.S. To the best of my knowledge, The MITRE Corporation does not have a policy on interface copyright, so the opinions expressed within do not represent the official policy of my company.
lhmaddox@cs.utexas.edu (Lawrence H. Maddox Jr.) (10/19/90)
In article <123663@linus.mitre.org> ramsdell@mitre.org writes: >Enclosed are some corrections to my initial plead, and pointers to >well thought out papers on the issue of interface copyrights. > >Lotus is trying to make it illegal to write software even partially >compatible in its behavior with existing software. If you write a >program that does a similar job, they will sue you. The threat is >real; Lotus is currently suing Borland over Quattro not because it >implements the same interface, but because you can customize the >interface to emulate Lotus 1-2-3! This is simply not true. Lotus is not suing everyone that makes a product similar to Lotus 1-2-3. In fact, Lotus is not suing Borland over Quattro because you can customize the interface to emulate Lotus 1-2-3, but because Borland has used this capability (the included emulation of 1-2-3, not the ability to customize) to sell the product to current 1-2-3 users. Lotus's previous suit against PaperBack Software was because their product was marketed as a Lotus 1-2-3 clone. Quattro Pro, with its included emulation of 1-2-3, is also being marketed as a Lotus 1-2-3 clone. The command interface used by 1-2-3 has been complimented many times (not to say that I think it is any good) by the press, and can be considered important to the product. Allowing other vendors to provide the *exact* same interface simply allows them to ride the success of Lotus. However, there have been 1-2-3 look-alikes for much longer than the recent law suits seem to indicate, and Lotus never seemed to mind much before. I believe that this can be related to the new Lotus product, Improv. Improv relies *directly* upon the user interface for its uniqueness and appeal. If Lotus were to allow other vendors to copy the user interface of Improv as they have with 1-2-3, it would severly weaken the advantage of inovation that Improv currently has. I think that this has a great deal to do with why Lotus is trying to make a big legal issue: they wish to set a precedent with 1-2-3 to protect Improv. >By distributing promotional copies of Lotus Improv, NeXT Inc. is >aiding and abiding a company that, in my opinion, engages in >monopolistic practices. I urge you to refuse to buy NeXT offerings >that include a free copy of Lotus Improv. In practice, this means >simply waiting until 1991 to place your order. If we do not take a >stand now and make our concerns clear to the NeXT management, they may >be the next to sue. >Some of the responses to my initial plead revealed enormous ignorance And what if Improv were to be bundled forever?? Would you advocate never purchasing a NeXT?? >about the issue of interface copyright. I hope you all will read this >year's November and May issues of the Communications of the ACM. An >informed and active user community is our only hope for protection >against forces of greed. > > Not to disillusion you, but this industry is to a great deal driven by greed. Why else would Borland produce a product containing a certain feature used explicitly to attract users away from Lotus? >P.S. To the best of my knowledge, The MITRE Corporation does not have >a policy on interface copyright, so the opinions expressed within do >not represent the official policy of my company. Ren ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: nothing I say REALLY means anything anyway.... primary: ------------------------------------> lhmaddox@cs.utexas.edu secondary: auschs!longhorn.austin.ibm.com!lhmaddox@cs.utexas.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (10/19/90)
In article <970@earth.cs.utexas.edu>, lhmaddox@cs.utexas.edu (Lawrence H. Maddox Jr.) writes: >This is simply not true. Lotus is not suing everyone that makes a >product similar to Lotus 1-2-3. In fact, Lotus is not suing Borland >over Quattro because you can customize the interface to emulate >Lotus 1-2-3, but because Borland has used this capability (the >included emulation of 1-2-3, not the ability to customize) to sell >the product to current 1-2-3 users. Lotus's previous suit against >PaperBack Software was because their product was marketed as a Lotus >1-2-3 clone. Quattro Pro, with its included emulation of 1-2-3, is >also being marketed as a Lotus 1-2-3 clone. You haven't seen either product, I gather. Quattro Pro is being marketed as a superior alternative to Lotus 1-2-3, and you have to delibertly turn on the Lotus menus to get "Lotus emulation." Quattro Pro does things which 1-2-3 doesn't. Paperback Software looked like 1-2-3 out of the box, with most enhancements "buried" within the code, and various menus. >However, there have been 1-2-3 look-alikes for much longer than the >recent law suits seem to indicate, and Lotus never seemed to mind >much before. I believe that this can be related to the new Lotus >product, Improv. Improv relies *directly* upon the user interface >for its uniqueness and appeal. If Lotus were to allow other vendors >to copy the user interface of Improv as they have with 1-2-3, it >would severly weaken the advantage of inovation that Improv currently >has. I think that this has a great deal to do with why Lotus is >trying to make a big legal issue: they wish to set a precedent with >1-2-3 to protect Improv. Nope. They wish to discourage a "look-and-feel" of 1-2-3. NeXT-generation software will have NeXTstep rules for its user interface; before Lotus there were no user-interface "standards" for the PC world. >>about the issue of interface copyright. I hope you all will read this >>year's November and May issues of the Communications of the ACM. An >>informed and active user community is our only hope for protection >>against forces of greed. > >Not to disillusion you, but this industry is to a great deal driven by >greed. Why else would Borland produce a product containing a certain >feature used explicitly to attract users away from Lotus? Convenience? Since Borland charges LESS for their product than 1-2-3, I hardly would accuse them of greed. The 1-2-3 emulation mode (maybe we should think of this as the same way VT-100 emulation mode is in terminal programs...oops, don't want to give Digital ideas :-) is a "hook" for people who want to convert. Since Lotus wants a relative monopoly on spreadsheets, their actions are motivated to increase profits, and raise the level of "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" to potential purchasers. Practially speaking, it pisses people off who would like to be able to choose on the basis of services and prices. Paperback software was selling their product for under $100 bucks. Lotus 1-2-3 very rarely ventured under the $200 dollar mark. Who's into greed?
denison@sonia.math.ucla.edu (Alan Denison) (10/19/90)
In article <123663@linus.mitre.org> ramsdell@mitre.org writes: >Enclosed are some corrections to my initial plead, and pointers to >well thought out papers on the issue of interface copyrights. > >Lotus is trying to make it illegal to write software even partially >compatible in its behavior with existing software. If you write a >program that does a similar job, they will sue you. The threat is >real; Lotus is currently suing Borland over Quattro not because it >implements the same interface, but because you can customize the >interface to emulate Lotus 1-2-3! > >By distributing promotional copies of Lotus Improv, NeXT Inc. is >aiding and abiding a company that, in my opinion, engages in >monopolistic practices. I urge you to refuse to buy NeXT offerings >that include a free copy of Lotus Improv. In practice, this means >simply waiting until 1991 to place your order. If we do not take a >stand now and make our concerns clear to the NeXT management, they may >be the next to sue. > >Some of the responses to my initial plead revealed enormous ignorance >about the issue of interface copyright. I hope you all will read this >year's November and May issues of the Communications of the ACM. An >informed and active user community is our only hope for protection >against forces of greed. > >John D. Ramsdell > >P.S. To the best of my knowledge, The MITRE Corporation does not have >a policy on interface copyright, so the opinions expressed within do >not represent the official policy of my company. You are still wrong about the way that Lotus Improv is being distributed. It is my understanding that when you receive a NeXTstation or an upgrade board you will then send in some kind of certificate or coupon to Lotus and then they will send you a free copy of a fully working version of Improv as soon as it ships. Given this information it is likely that one will not have to send this coup to Lotus. If you really feel like buying a NeXT (which is a great idea by the way), you want a spreadsheet, and you want to boycott Lotus products maybe you should look at Ashton-Tate's PowerStep. It is not constructive for you or anyone else to bash NeXT for a promotion that is completely in another companies hands. I agree that interface technology should be allowed to be shared instead of owned by companies. I do not agree, though, that Lotus intends to do this with their products for the NeXT. I have heard (rumor only) that they plan on making it possible to allow other applications (besides Improv) to interface with their graphing tool (Presentation Builder) in the future by releasing some kind of object interface tool. Also, I've seen programs adopting interface techniques used by different companies with the NeXT development society (e.g. Inspector Panels). I suggest that you let Lotus start anew with their applications on the NeXT. Maybe we can start boycotting programs on the NeXT when someone starts to claim that they were the first person to create a 3-D rotating pop-up heirarchical menu and they are going to sue everyone else who adopted it. I don't see this happening, though. Allen Denison, NeXT Campus Consultant for UCLA p.s. My views do not necessarily represent those of NeXT or UCLA. D p.s. My views do not re C plan on allowing their
hoford@sequoia.upenn.edu (John Hoford) (10/19/90)
In article <123663@linus.mitre.org> ramsdell@mitre.org writes: >Enclosed are some corrections to my initial plead, and pointers to >well thought out papers on the issue of interface copyrights. > >Lotus is trying to make it illegal to write software even partially >compatible in its behavior with existing software. If you write a >program that does a similar job, they will sue you. The threat is >real; Lotus is currently suing Borland over Quattro not because it >implements the same interface, but because you can customize the >interface to emulate Lotus 1-2-3! Look at this from another side. A large part of my work is in user interface design, I consider what I do creative and original. For years people have been able to patent their designs on mechanical user interfaces for every thing from hammers to bikes. Why should people who design hammers with a 15 degree bend be protected and people who spend years doing research in user interface have no protection. The american system protects creativity with copyrights and patents if you have a problem with this you should not buy patented or copyrighted products. John D. Hoford
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (10/20/90)
In <31403@netnews.upenn.edu> hoford@sequoia.upenn.edu (John Hoford) writes: >In article <123663@linus.mitre.org> ramsdell@mitre.org writes: >>Lotus is trying to make it illegal to write software even partially >>compatible in its behavior with existing software. If you write a >>program that does a similar job, they will sue you. The threat is >>real; Lotus is currently suing Borland over Quattro not because it >>implements the same interface, but because you can customize the >>interface to emulate Lotus 1-2-3! >Look at this from another side. >A large part of my work is in user interface design, >I consider what I do creative and original. >For years people have been able to patent their designs on >mechanical user interfaces for every thing from hammers to >bikes. Why should people who design hammers with a 15 degree bend >be protected and people who spend years doing research >in user interface have no protection. *asbestos suit on* Yes one might say that. I started thinking about this the other day. From what I remember about copyrights/patents from an article I read, you can get one (a patent) if what you have shows a unique nature that noone has thought up before, and is not trivial. And for computers before the NeXT, I would agree with you on user interfaces, mainly because you had to design it yourself. Even the Mac, with it's standard interface only helps the programmer a little in creating the interface. But even with that amount, most Mac programs are remarkably alike in the interface. Sure, they all differ, but all the basic concepts exist there. And similar products often look a lot alike. Heck, sometimes I would go help a user and not now for sure if they were using MacWrite or Word for a little bit, they are very similar (although Word is MUCH better). Now with the NeXT, there is Interface Builder, and it GIVES you the power to create quite powerful interfaces. It's "almost" a trivial matter. Sure, it isn't exactly simple, but creating the interface is no longer all that difficult. With my little experience in IB, I know I could easily create a host of interfaces that match other products, even some that I probably don't know about. The real major work comes in the programming the thing, and giving it the guts. >The american system protects creativity with copyrights and patents >if you have a problem with this you should not buy patented or copyrighted >products. I remember reading a quite interesting article about copyrights, and the software industry. And how it was hurting the computer industry, not by protecting creativity, but by stifiling it. Personally, I agree. Apple is a perfect example. With their sue happy lawyers, they have eliminated a potentially HUGE Mac clone market. With competitors making cheaper Mac's, Apple would be forced to ither make a better product, sell it cheaper, or loose business. This kind of competiveness in my mind makes GREAT products. Just look at IBM's. They have so much competition, it's ridiculous. Speed, price, and such are MUCH better there, because you HAVE to or you go bankrupt. Please, no flames because I don't understand the copyright/patent laws enough. I know I don't, I'm just expressing my views of the situation. -k "I want my Cube!"
madler@piglet.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) (10/20/90)
I respectfully suggest that this conversation on Lotus, copyrights, and whatever be moved elsewhere. The suggestion has been made that those that get a coupon for Improv return it as a political statement. Beyond that, I'm sure there is an alt.something.something where this discussion is more appropriate. Mark Adler madler@piglet.caltech.edu
SLVQC@CUNYVM (Salvatore Saieva) (10/20/90)
In article <1990Oct19.203242.1532@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, madler@piglet.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) says: > >I respectfully suggest that this conversation on Lotus, copyrights, and >whatever be moved elsewhere. The suggestion has been made that those >that get a coupon for Improv return it as a political statement. Beyond >that, I'm sure there is an alt.something.something where this discussion >is more appropriate. Here, Here! [Vigorous claps and whistles...] Sal. ------- Salvatore Saieva Internet: slvqc@cunyvm.cuny.edu Queens College, Academic Computer Center BITNET: slvqc@cunyvm.bitnet 65-30 Kissena Blvd, Flushing, N.Y. 11367 DeskNet: (718) 520-7662 awk, sed, grep, lex, yacc, make, >, <, |,... ``I got the Power!''
cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Chuck Herrick) (10/21/90)
In article <1990Oct19.203242.1532@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, >madler@piglet.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) says: >>I respectfully suggest that this conversation on Lotus, copyrights, and >>whatever be moved elsewhere. > I also agree. And I would like to suggest the creation of a new newsgroup to be called comp.sys.next.tech which would be a platform for help and technical issues regarding NeXT computers, leaving comp.sys.next for more "free-wheeling" postings. What do you think folks, shall do it? -- Chuck Herrick cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu
scott@NIC.GAC.EDU (10/21/90)
cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Chuck Herrick) writes: >In article <1990Oct19.203242.1532@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, >>madler@piglet.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) says: >>>I respectfully suggest that this conversation on Lotus, copyrights, and >>>whatever be moved elsewhere. >> >I also agree. And I would like to suggest the creation of a new >newsgroup to be called > comp.sys.next.tech >which would be a platform for help and technical issues regarding NeXT >computers, leaving comp.sys.next for more "free-wheeling" postings. >What do you think folks, shall do it? No. This group is not all that busy. Splitting it into normal and tech would simply mean that people would have to read both. If you really want to, subscribe to the next-prog mailing list. If you want to see a _busy_ group, check out comp.sys.amiga. Then, if you want to see a tech group in action, check out comp.sys.amiga.tech. I don't think that it was worth it, because if you really are interested, you need to read both groups, because people generally just post to the one they read most often (w/o regards to content). Actually, I think a better idea would be to create comp.sys.next.mac and comp.sys.next.sun, and comp.sys.next.cheap.software, and comp.sys.next.sports (for general bashing). scott hess scott@gac.edu Independent NeXT Developer (Stuart) NeXT Campus Consultant (Not much, really) GAC Undergrad (Horrid. Simply Horrid. I mean the work!) <I still speak for nobody>
gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) (10/21/90)
/ comp.sys.next / denison@sonia.math.ucla.edu (Alan Denison) / Oct 19, 1990 / > I suggest that you let Lotus start anew with their applications on the NeXT. > Maybe we can start boycotting programs on the NeXT when someone starts to > claim that they were the first person to create a 3-D rotating pop-up > heirarchical menu and they are going to sue everyone else who adopted it. > I don't see this happening, though. 1. One doesn't boycott a product, one boycotts a company. 2. The company may not even have a product for the NeXT. For example, Xerox and Apple are making claims that threaten NeXTstep (and any other window system), even though NeXT is not a target for neither their lawsuits nor their products at this time. Jacob -- Jacob Gore jacob@gore.com boulder!gore!jacob
tmab+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Mok) (10/22/90)
Now, let me get this straight. Lotus is giving out their Improv to NeXT purchases and upgrades made before the end of the year. You want to boycott Lotus, and ask people not to buy NeXT until next year. Does that hurt NeXT more than it hurts Lotus? Moreover, even if everyone turns down the offer, what will Lotus lose? They just didn't give out as many free copies as they should! Quite frankly, I don't think boycotting is a solution. The root of software patents and copyrights is in the law itself. To solve this problem, you should get people to plea to their congressmen to rule out software patents altogether. There is an article on software patents in this month's issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal. It should supplement what you've read in the CACM. Lastly, so what if Lotus goes out of business? So what if Apple goes out of business? Will the problem be solved? - Tom Mok
ramsdell@mitre.org (John D. Ramsdell) (10/22/90)
In article <31403@netnews.upenn.edu> hoford@sequoia.upenn.edu (John Hoford) writes:
Look at this from another side.
A large part of my work is in user interface design,
I consider what I do creative and original.
For years people have been able to patent their designs on
mechanical user interfaces for every thing from hammers to
bikes. Why should people who design hammers with a 15 degree bend
be protected and people who spend years doing research
in user interface have no protection.
The american system protects creativity with copyrights and patents
if you have a problem with this you should not buy patented or copyrighted
products.
John D. Hoford
John D. Hoford makes a thoughtful point that deserves an answer.
Copyrights and patents are legal monopolies granted by the government.
The constitution allows the government to grant these monopolies to
promote the progress of science and the useful arts. In other words,
the monopolies must serve the interests of the public. To argue for
interface copyrights, one must show that the protection of interfaces
promotes the interests of the public. Let me state the obvious fact
that the public interests may be different from the interests of
interface developers.
While developers spend a substantial amount of resources developing an
interface, if the interface is successful, that effort is dwarfed by
the amount of resources invested by users of the interface. Just as
drivers of cars want nearly the same set of controls from every car
maker, users of computer spread sheets want nearly the same interface.
By allowing computer interfaces to be copyrighted, you force all users
to learn a different interface for products that do nearly the same
thing. How can forcing incompatiable interfaces on computer users be
construed as promoting the progress of science and the useful arts?
Johnramsdell@mitre.org (John D. Ramsdell) (10/22/90)
There seems to be people who believe both that copyrights on interfaces are wrong, and that it is inappropriate to punish NeXT Inc. for promoting companies that believe copyrights on interfaces are okay. Before I got around to responding to this idea, I received a message that addresses the issue from Richard M. Stallman, the president of the League for Programming Freedom. I sent him a copy of one of my messages and here is his reply: ============================================= NeXT is offering users "free" copies of Lotus Improv if they order upgrades before December 31. Lotus is, of course, the company that has established a monopoly on the spreadsheet commands most users know. Now any independent spreadsheet is required to have new commands that nobody knows (and that hardly anyone will want to learn, no matter how good they might be). The result is in effect a near-monopoly on spreadsheets for Lotus. And, beyond that, the loss of our freedom to write the programs the users want. These "free" copies are actually very expensive. Using a Lotus product promotes Lotus, which aids them in denying your freedom. Even if you don't pay for these copies, using their product will encourage other people to buy it. It is vitally important to discourage NeXT and other companies from aiding Lotus in this way. The best way to do this is to refrain from ordering an upgrade until after December 31. And send a letter or message to NeXT, saying why. Explain that you are offended by the offer. By waiting till next year, you arrange not to be offered a copy of Improv. If you order an upgrade now, and simply refrain from asking for a copy of Improv, this will not express your displeasure. This would do no harm, but also would do no good. Lotus has already established a monopoly; now it is up to us to regain the freedom to write programs. Neutral actions won't accomplish this. By delaying your upgrade, you will disappoint NeXT's hope that this promotion would encourage rapid upgrading. If they have paid money to Lotus for this, they will see it was wasted. Both of these things will help to prevent this promotion from being the start of a trend. If you belong to a NeXT users' group, then please print copies of this message to distribute on paper at the next meeting. We need to spread the word to people who don't read netnews. If people are unfamiliar with the issue of look and feel copyright, then show them copies of the League for Programming Freedom position paper to inform them. You can request this position paper by email to league@prep.ai.mit.edu; ask for "Against User Interface Copyright".
jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (10/25/90)
In article <RAMSDELL.90Oct22092930@huxley.mitre.org>, ramsdell@mitre.org (John D. Ramsdell) writes: |>By delaying your upgrade, you will disappoint NeXT's hope that this |>promotion would encourage rapid upgrading. If they have paid money to |>Lotus for this, they will see it was wasted. Both of these things |>will help to prevent this promotion from being the start of a trend. |> And you will also, if you drive out Lotus, disapoint NeXT's hope of finally really making it in the business world. Improv may be the product for NeXT that 1-2-3 was for the PC -- the product that made the machine acceptable to all sorts of businesses. The next couple of years are going to be very important for NeXT. They will decide whether NeXT becomes the machine of the 1990s or the Amiga of the 1990s. (No insult to the Amiga intended here. The Amiga is a great machine that is not widely accepted in the business world, and has lots of users scratching their heads, wondering why more people don't buy it.) A Lotus product -- more importantly, a great Lotus product, which Improv seems to be -- may make the difference. Yes, I disagree with Lotus on this one. I disagree with Apple in their suite against Microsoft. That doesn't stop me from using Macs. The solution is NOT to scream at Lotus or Microsoft, both of whom are doing what the law allows: trying to protect their interface. It would be stupid of them, given the current laws, not to. Instead of protesting against Lotus, write to your Congressman, telling him/her to change the laws. Jim Mann Stratus Computer jmann@es.stratus.com
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (10/25/90)
I guess the most important idea of patents got lost nowadays. Originally patents were invented such that specific procedures to produce something did not get lost as earlier in history because the inventor dies and took his secret with him into the grave. It was supposed that the inventor had to disclose the content and the procedure such that any other person in the same field could reproduce the results exactly. (That's also where the name patent comes from, the latin patere which means be open). So in exchange for a contribution to human knowledge, the inventor had the exclusive right to use it for a limited amount of time. This way he could get back his research costs, and make the profit he needed to live and reward him for the risk he took. Patents also don't stop research. If you build on top of a patent and improve it significantly, you can get a patent on the improvement, and the original inventor may not use your invention although you built on top of his. Usually this is resolved with a cross-licensing agreement. This is a fair way to make sure there will not be a technology monopoly if there are other inventors around. Then there was the copyright that protected artists from people that wanted to make a quick profit from work another did. But in a piece of art through the publication, it is also become a piece of human knowledge. (Well except it it is too abstract, but that's something else). Because it is creative work there is noone dependent on it, protection of artwork does not restrict someone else to be creative. Thus the protection holds for a much longer time than for patents. And finally we have the computer industry that comes along, sees both and wants to pick the best out of both: - long protection - no publication - no contribution to human knowledge - hefty profits I think it is just not fair to give programs copyright protection. It would be more appropriate to give them patents. Just look at all the tool the big software companies have in house. Will we ever see them? No. Can we ever learn from them? No. Can we ever extend them and improve them? No. Basically what happens is that the software companies get all the protection and more than from a patent with no contribution to the community as a whole. That's what I think is disgusting, not the fact that intellectual property is protected. -- Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." Bernhard Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@browncog.bitnet ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) (10/26/90)
[Letter from Richard Stallman saying `boycott Lotus' deleted] I really don't think Lotus is the problem---they are just a symptom. The problem lies in the interpretation of exisitng laws. I can't really blame Lotus for using the existing laws to protect their interests---they weren't protecting _user's_ interests, but no one ever said they were philanthropists. When a legal case produces a decision that is ``not right'', that should trigger changes in the law, not persecution of the defendant. After all, it wasn't Lotus that _made the ruling_---they just asked the question. So, instead of ``boycott NeXT'' or ``boycott Lotus'' (two companies currently doing the _most_ innovative product development in their areas), I would suggest joining with the League For Programming Freedom in lobbying for more appropriate laws. -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
geoff@ITcorp.com (Geoff Kuenning) (10/31/90)
In article <54357@brunix.UUCP> rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) writes: > And finally we have the computer industry that comes along, sees both and > wants to pick the best out of both: > - long protection > - no publication > - no contribution to human knowledge > - hefty profits This article is the first intelligent posting I have seen on this subject. In contrast to Richard Stallman's usual profits-are-evil-and-oh-by-the-way- I-charge-$200-an-hour postings, Ronald has provided us with a cogent and concise analysis of why copyright is socially inappropriate for computer software, and a suggestion of the direction future legislation ought to be taking. Nice posting, Ronald! -- Geoff Kuenning geoff@ITcorp.com uunet!desint!geoff
ramsdell@mitre.org (John D. Ramsdell) (11/08/90)
The complete reference to the article explaining the dangers of
interface copyright is "Against User Interface Copyright" by Richard
Stallman and Simson Garfinkel, Communications of the ACM, November
1990, Vol. 33, No. 11, pp. 15-18.
In article <EbBT9aO00ioEA1dkYU@andrew.cmu.edu> kh2v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Keith Hawkins) writes:
Can someone explain what all the fury is concerning Lotus Improv and the
040 upgrades to someone who has just got on the NeXT bandwagon.
i.e. What sin has NeXT and/or Lotus committed?
Just wondering.
Lotus is one of the companies that is using the courts to expand the
domain of copyright law into the area of user interfaces. NeXT
Computer, Inc. has been promoting Lotus software in their resent sales
campaign. For example, the literature NeXT sent to me states:
For a limited time, customers who upgrade their
system with a 68040 processor board will receive
a free copy of Lotus Improv.
I hope you will join me and wait until after the offer expires before
ordering upgrades from NeXT. Even if you do not join me, please take
the time to write to the following subcommitties about your fears
relating to interface copyright:
House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
2137 Rayburn Bldg
Washington, DC 20515
Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Johnglang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) (11/08/90)
>ordering upgrades from NeXT. Even if you do not join me, please take >the time to write to the following subcommitties about your fears >relating to interface copyright: Yes. While you're at it, ask them to cut down on defense contractors, including Mitre. Give this subject a rest please. - g