Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cuae2!gatech!lll-lcc!pyramid!cti!eric
From: eric@cti.UUCP
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Copyrighting trivial code
Message-ID: <536@cti.cti.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Feb-87 14:17:11 EST
Article-I.D.: cti.536
Posted: Tue Feb 10 14:17:11 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Feb-87 20:30:30 EST
References: <2567@phri.UUCP> <6564@alice.uUCp> <402@prairie.UUCP>
Reply-To: eric@cti.UUCP (Eric Black)
Organization: Cornerstone Technology, Inc.
Lines: 53
Summary: Artists can copyright the appearance of their work
Xref: watmath misc.legal:609 comp.unix.wizards:910

In article <402@prairie.UUCP> dan@prairie.UUCP (Daniel M. Frank) writes:
>In article <6564@alice.uUCp> ark@alice.UUCP writes:
>>As far as I know, copyright only protects copying.  In order to copy
>>something, you have to see the original and transcribe it in some
>>way (including changing it). [...]
>
>   Recently, several large software companies, most notably Apple Computer
>and Lotus Development, have initiated copyright infringement suits based
>on the "look and feel" of their products. [...]

Artists, including painters, sculptors, jewelers, and others, have long
been able to copyright their work, to give them control over reproductions.
If another artist independently creates a similar (if not identical) work,
the copyright is not infringed.  If someone sees the original, and then
creates the similar or identical work, the copyright may be infringed.
As I see it (as a non-lawyer!), this would be precedent for protecting
the "look and feel" of a product in the cases where there is a conscious
attempt to capitalize on the success of a product.  So things such
as "Kloneware" (was that them?) loudly advertising their "Mirror" product
as being indistinguishable from the original (more expensive) product
could be in trouble.  Independently-developed products, perhaps with the
independence supported by evidence of user-interface research, rather than
copying, should not infringe on a copyright.

An important question then becomes, do potential customers during this
research influence the design because they prefer the one they were
already exposed to, the previous product?  And at what point does it
cross over into more general and ubiquitous areas which are not copyrightable
(e.g. a jeweler's design of an earring: the specifics of, say, a gold flower,
are protectable, but the fact that it has a stud for insertion in a pierced
ear is not)?  Is something like a desktop metaphor, a mouse and menus,
getting into that general functionality class of ideas?  Ideas are not
copyrightable, just a specific expression of them is.  I see people
being careful to avoid pull-down menus, using pop-up, pop-down, hold-down,
all sorts of other things.  This strikes me as being silly.

I agree, too broad application of protection to the "look and feel" of
software seems about as fair and reasonable as would broad interpretation
of the recently-passed Electronic Information and Privacy Act.

As Shakespeare wrote, "First, we kill the lawyers."  I wonder if the judges
shouldn't be first, or at least simultaneous.

I'm not a lawyer.  I feel extreme disgust and worry over the direction
that litigation has been taking over the past several years, particularly
regarding liability suits and legal issues regarding technology.  In
a more ideal world, people would accept responsibility for the results of
their actions, and would behave responsibly towards each other and the
work and property of others.  Sigh.

-- 
Eric Black   "Garbage In, Gospel Out"
UUCP:        {sun,pyramid,hplabs,amdcad}!cti!eric