Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!AI.MIT.EDU!rms
From: rms@AI.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Standard argument #1
Message-ID: <8906170548.AA00868@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 17 Jun 89 05:48:41 GMT
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 32

Some people have recently posted the standard argument that no one
could have jobs improving user interfaces without user interface
copyright; and supposedly therefore we would have worse interfaces.
(Since this argument is so characteristic of American business
ideology, there is no need to spell it out if you want to repeat it;
just saying "standard argument #1" will suffice.)

The facts show this is an exaggeration, at the very least.  Large
amounts of work were done on user interfaces in the 1970's, despite
the general agreement that they could not be copyrighted.

The standard argument also ignores the fact that user interface
improvements can be, and often are, made as part of a project which is
primarily development.  Businesses can fund this without any special
privileges or monopolies.  These improvements also do not require
people hired specifically and only to work on user interfaces;
programmers working on a project will often have ideas for improving
the interface.

Hiring people for interface design alone is only one way to develop
interfaces: it is not essential.

However, even without copyright, there were a considerable number of
people working specifically on user interfaces during the 1970's.


Since much work on user interfaces is incremental, it
would be hampered by copyright.  Thus, copyright could actually 
reduce the amount of interface development.  Also, even if people
see how to improve part of an interface, they may not see how to
replace every aspect: such partial improvements would be illegal
under copyright.