Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 +MMDF+MULTI+2.11; site kcl-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!ukc!kcl-cs!smithg
From: smithg@kcl-cs.UUCP (ZNAC346)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.micro.atari,net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: DRI agrees to change GEM ; why??
Message-ID: <617@neon.kcl-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 12:54:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: neon.617
Posted: Fri Oct 18 12:54:30 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Oct-85 07:01:02 EDT
References: <3208@nsc.UUCP> <1196@vax1.fluke.UUCP> <3226@nsc.UUCP> <299@ccivax.UUCP> <3251@nsc.UUCP> <533@ihlpm.UUCP>
Reply-To: smithg@kcl-cs.UUCP (Lionel Smith-Gordon)
Distribution: net
Organization: Department of Computing, Kings College, University of London.
Lines: 19
Xref: linus net.micro.pc:5407 net.micro.atari:1377 net.micro.mac:3072
Xpath: kcl-cs neon

In article <533@ihlpm.UUCP> kvk@ihlpm.UUCP (Kevin) writes:
>Huh? Visual copyright?! I doubt such a thing exists 
>
>My understanding of software copyright law is that someone can produce a program
>with a similar visual look, and as long as no code is pirated from the first
>program, no infringement exists.

To the contrary, visual look is under copyright - the same law that covers
photographs etc.

I once received a mailing from a British company that specialises in recording
screen displays for software houses so that there was a formal record ready
for any copyright legal action.
According to them, screen displays are easy to enforce under copyright law
than object code.

I would agree, however, that Apple have no greater case against DRI than
Xerox PARC have against Apple, Kodak, Interleaf, Xyvision, Caddex etc etc
who also use this type of screen interface.