Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!mit-eddie!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!asd
From: asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Boycott NeXT offerings that include a free copy of Lotus Improv
Message-ID: <5816@mace.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 19 Oct 90 18:35:27 GMT
References: <123663@linus.mitre.org> <970@earth.cs.utexas.edu> <31403@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 65
Cc:

In <31403@netnews.upenn.edu> hoford@sequoia.upenn.edu (John Hoford) writes:

>In article <123663@linus.mitre.org> ramsdell@mitre.org writes:
>>Lotus is trying to make it illegal to write software even partially
>>compatible in its behavior with existing software.  If you write a
>>program that does a similar job, they will sue you.  The threat is
>>real; Lotus is currently suing Borland over Quattro not because it
>>implements the same interface, but because you can customize the
>>interface to emulate Lotus 1-2-3!

>Look at this from another side.  >A large part of my work is in user
interface design, >I consider what I do creative and original.  >For
years people have been able to patent their designs on >mechanical
user interfaces for every thing from hammers to >bikes. Why should
people who design hammers with a 15 degree bend >be protected and
people who spend years doing research >in user interface have no
protection.

*asbestos suit on*

Yes one might say that.  I started thinking about this the other day.
From what I remember about copyrights/patents from an article I read,
you can get one (a patent) if what you have shows a unique nature that
noone has thought up before, and is not trivial.  And for computers
before the NeXT, I would agree with you on user interfaces, mainly
because you had to design it yourself.  Even the Mac, with it's
standard interface only helps the programmer a little in creating the
interface.  But even with that amount, most Mac programs are
remarkably alike in the interface.  Sure, they all differ, but all the
basic concepts exist there.  And similar products often look a lot
alike.  Heck, sometimes I would go help a user and not now for sure if
they were using MacWrite or Word for a little bit, they are very
similar (although Word is MUCH better).

Now with the NeXT, there is Interface Builder, and it GIVES you the
power to create quite powerful interfaces.  It's "almost" a trivial
matter.  Sure, it isn't exactly simple, but creating the interface is
no longer all that difficult.  With my little experience in IB, I know
I could easily create a host of interfaces that match other products,
even some that I probably don't know about.  The real major work comes
in the programming the thing, and giving it the guts.

>The american system protects creativity with copyrights and patents
>if you have a problem with this you should not buy patented or
copyrighted >products.

I remember reading a quite interesting article about copyrights, and
the software industry.  And how it was hurting the computer industry,
not by protecting creativity, but by stifiling it.  Personally, I
agree.  Apple is a perfect example.  With their sue happy lawyers,
they have eliminated a potentially HUGE Mac clone market.  With
competitors making cheaper Mac's, Apple would be forced to ither make
a better product, sell it cheaper, or loose business.  This kind of
competiveness in my mind makes GREAT products.  Just look at IBM's.
They have so much competition, it's ridiculous.  Speed, price,
and such are MUCH better there, because you HAVE to or you go
bankrupt.

Please, no flames because I don't understand the copyright/patent laws
enough.  I know I don't, I'm just expressing my views of the
situation.

-k

"I want my Cube!"