Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!sgi!karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com
From: karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Patents and Architecture
Message-ID: <62960@sgi.sgi.com>
Date: 27 Jun 90 09:23:47 GMT
References: <62864@sgi.sgi.com> <38440@think.Think.COM>
Sender: news@sgi.sgi.com
Reply-To: karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 51

>First of all, your second sentence specifically mentions two window systems
>that didn't copy the Macintosh window system, yet you complain that
>software designers haven't tried to invent other window systems.

I applaud these efforts.  We need a lot more work in this area.

>Please list all these clone window systems.

I think that Motif looks like a direct ripoff of the Macintosh.  New Wave
didn't look very innovative to me either.

>Second, there are good reasons for copying user interfaces, as it makes it
>easier for users to switch back and forth between the various environments.

Great, they can switch back and forth between the same inadequate, outdated
window systems.

>Variation is much less of a problem for users if it is kept on the inside
>of the program, rather than showing its face to the user, unless it
>provides a marked improvement in ease of use.  Analogy: whenever I rent an
>unfamiliar car I have to waste time finding some of the controls.

That hasn't stopped the car market, has it.  We shouldn't be making Model-T's
when we can be making modern systems.

If you believe that a standard window system is an economically viable
product and you can convince some investors, then write one and patent its.
novel features.  Copyright whatever else you can in it.  Then sell it.
If you are right, you'll make enough money to continue development.
If it's really important enough to users that their window systems look
identical, then they will switch to yours.  There is no reason to
plagarize other's inventions.

>Third, many of the window system implementors may not be interested in
>spending their resources designing window systems.

They can license existing window systems, or use public domain ones.  They
just can't plagarize patented ones.  This seems fair enough to me.

>  They are application
>developers who happen to need a window system as part of their application,
>but the application-specific part of their program is what they are mostly
>concerned with.  So they copy a popular window system.  Analogy: new car
>designs generally include old door designs.

They don't copy patented parts of the door designs.  New door designs are
invented all the time.  Automobile companies will license patented parts
of door designs if they want them badly enough.

			Bruce Karsh
			karsh@sgi.com