Xref: utzoo misc.legal:4370 comp.sys.ibm.pc:13771 comp.sys.mac:14482 comp.sys.apple:4945 comp.sys.hp:615
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!gatech!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!raveling
From: raveling@vaxa.isi.edu (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: Apple challenges MS-Windows, et.al.
Message-ID: <5134@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 88 16:24:40 GMT
References: <2543@charon.unm.edu>
Sender: news@venera.isi.edu
Reply-To: raveling@vaxa.isi.edu (Paul Raveling)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute
Lines: 30

In article <2543@charon.unm.edu> cs2531bn@unmc.UUCP (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>
>Far too late for that already.  The courts have already decided that the "look
>and feel" of a user interface CAN be copyrighted.  Remember the lawsuit that
>Broderbund won over one of the Print Shop clones?
>
	Being able to copyright "look and feel" is a decision the
	courts should reverse.

	Original copyright law didn't prohibit paper (e.g., book)
	publishers from using the same look and feel as an already-
	copyrighted publication.  They could use the same graphic
	styles, font styles, page layouts.  They could produce the
	same "feel" by structuring the document for its intended use
	(reference manual, tutorial, programmed instruction text,
	novel, ...).
	
	Most newspapers have similar look-and-feel.  Could you picture
	requiring all newspapers to either pay royalties to one company
	or cease publication?

	Any attempt to restrict use of simimar "look and feel"
	seriously threatens the ability of EVERYONE to provide
	software, no matter how beneficial that software would be.


---------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@vaxa.isi.edu