Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!rsellens
From: rsellens@watdcsu.UUCP (Rick Sellens - Mech. Eng.)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.micro.atari,net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: DRI agrees to change GEM ; why??
Message-ID: <1762@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 09:56:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1762
Posted: Wed Oct 16 09:56:36 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 01:27:41 EDT
References: <3208@nsc.UUCP> <1196@vax1.fluke.UUCP> <3226@nsc.UUCP> <299@ccivax.UUCP> <3251@nsc.UUCP> <533@ihlpm.UUCP>
Reply-To: rsellens@watdcsu.UUCP (Rick Sellens - Mech. Eng.)
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 44
Xref: watmath net.micro.pc:5620 net.micro.atari:1388 net.micro.mac:2989
Summary: 

In article <533@ihlpm.UUCP> kvk@ihlpm.UUCP (Kevin) writes:
>> In article <299@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes:
>> ......................................... The case was specifically for the
>> visual copyright, so looking too much like the Mac was exactly what Apple
>> was (deservedly) upset about.........
>> 
>> >But things like binding (install application)
>> >are much different.
>> 
>> This also has nothing to do with the visual copyright....
>
>Huh? Visual copyright?! I doubt such a thing exists - Imagine IBM copyrighting
>not only their ROM code but the look (the top is a plastic rectangle with these
>little metal pins sticking out... :-) ).
>
>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. Otherwise Xerox should certainly sue Apple.
>
>Anyone know if DRI employed people from the Mac development team? This was my
>guess on why DRI gave in.
>
>These are my personal opinions, such as they are.
>
>					Kevin Kinder
>					ihnp4!ihlpm!kvk


I believe a suit over piracy of video game code was settled a while ago
with damages awarded for copyright violation. The question of ROM copy-
right was left up in the air in that decision, but the copyright the 
company had on the fixed scenario "come-on" screens was upheld. 

It seems to me that if Apple has copyright and or trademark registrations
on their desktop image they may be able to get damages from anyone who
copies that image, in whatever form. Whether that's a good thing probably
depends on where you sit.


Rick Sellens
UUCP:     watmath!watdcsu!rsellens
CSNET:    rsellens%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet
ARPA:     rsellens%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Physical: 372A Churchill Court, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada  N2L 6B4