Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bu.edu!snorkelwacker!think!barmar
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Patents and Architecture
Message-ID: <38440@think.Think.COM>
Date: 27 Jun 90 02:55:49 GMT
References: <62864@sgi.sgi.com>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Reply-To: barmar@nugodot.think.com (Barry Margolin)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 47

In article <62864@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes:
>Have people noticed that certain new window systems look almost exactly
>like the Macintosh?  They don't look that much like NeWS or like UWM.
>They look like the Macintosh.  If I were one of the designer's of the
>Macintosh UI, I'd be upset about having my design stolen.  

Well, Apple *has* been suing copy-cats, so I guess they are (well, I guess
the lawyers who work for the company that employed the designers are).  And
Apple did patent pull-down menus (that's probably one reason why GEM has
drop-down menus).

>							    Why didn't
>software designers create a new look instead of rote-copying someone
>else's?  Could it be for the same reasons that unscrupulous students
>sometimes plagarize other's work?  Is it because they don't think they
>are capable of doing better themselves?  Or is it because they don't
>want to invest the same amout that the original inventor invested?

I have nothing against innovation and patenting, but there are many ways to
respond to the above.

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 know of
at least four different window managers in use with the X window system,
and none of them are Macintosh clones.  The Interleaf and NeXT window
systems aren't Mac clones, either.  Please list all these clone window
systems.

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.
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.

Third, many of the window system implementors may not be interested in
spending their resources designing window systems.  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.
--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar