Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!mouse
From: mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Boycott 68040 upgrades that include Lotus Improv
Message-ID: <1990Nov26.022638.20419@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>
Date: 26 Nov 90 02:26:38 GMT
References: <1990Oct31.020635.5916@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines
Lines: 36

In article <1990Oct31.020635.5916@midway.uchicago.edu>, gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes:
> In article <1990Oct31.012615.19372@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, gcarter@globey.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) writes...
>> I think the key to the Lotus fiasco is the point that, we as
>> software designers MUST use reusable materials to be able to
>> economically produce software.  You cannot do this within the
>> copyright system.  Its impossible.

Not quite.  In the patent system it would be.  Copyright mechanisms do
not keep you from using independent-but-identical code (though you may
have trouble proving it to be independent).

>> Either licensing fees will kill you or the legal fondu will surely
>> make it impossible to make a profit.
> Regardless of Next's success, if your claim is that you have to use
> other people's copyrighted work to create new and useful products,
> then I would say that you may have difficulty in your software
> creation in the future.

Exactly.

>> [...] money hungry grubbing people like Lotus [...]
> Or money hungry people like Apple.  Or Next.

True.

> Or the corner grocer.

Invalid compaison.  The grocer is selling material goods, not pure
information.  (What's the difference?  If I give you an orange, I don't
have it afterwards.  If I give you a program, I do.)

					der Mouse

			old: mcgill-vision!mouse
			new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu