Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!linus!linus!ramsdell From: ramsdell@mitre.org (John D. Ramsdell) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Boycott NeXT offerings that include a free copy of Lotus Improv Message-ID: Date: 22 Oct 90 13:03:55 GMT References: <123663@linus.mitre.org> <970@earth.cs.utexas.edu> <31403@netnews.upenn.edu> Sender: ramsdell@linus.mitre.org Reply-To: ramsdell@mitre.org Organization: Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA. Lines: 40 In-reply-to: hoford@sequoia.upenn.edu's message of 19 Oct 90 15:39:29 GMT In article <31403@netnews.upenn.edu> hoford@sequoia.upenn.edu (John Hoford) writes: 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. The american system protects creativity with copyrights and patents if you have a problem with this you should not buy patented or copyrighted products. John D. Hoford John D. Hoford makes a thoughtful point that deserves an answer. Copyrights and patents are legal monopolies granted by the government. The constitution allows the government to grant these monopolies to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. In other words, the monopolies must serve the interests of the public. To argue for interface copyrights, one must show that the protection of interfaces promotes the interests of the public. Let me state the obvious fact that the public interests may be different from the interests of interface developers. While developers spend a substantial amount of resources developing an interface, if the interface is successful, that effort is dwarfed by the amount of resources invested by users of the interface. Just as drivers of cars want nearly the same set of controls from every car maker, users of computer spread sheets want nearly the same interface. By allowing computer interfaces to be copyrighted, you force all users to learn a different interface for products that do nearly the same thing. How can forcing incompatiable interfaces on computer users be construed as promoting the progress of science and the useful arts? John