Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!pcg
From: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: Supposed intellectual property rights.
Message-ID: <1010@aber-cs.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jun 89 12:35:07 GMT
Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth
	(Disclaimer: my statements are purely personal)
Lines: 48

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