Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!boulder!fozzard
From: fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: Supposed intellectual property rights.
Message-ID: <9411@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 14 Jun 89 20:09:49 GMT
References: <1010@aber-cs.UUCP>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 53

*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