Path: utzoo!telly!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!eda!jim
From: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: Supposed intellectual property rights.
Message-ID: <505@eda.com>
Date: 15 Jun 89 07:23:52 GMT
References: <1010@aber-cs.UUCP> <9411@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Reply-To: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: EDA Systems,Inc. Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 70

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