Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:14200 comp.sys.mac:14861
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!im4u!ut-sally!ut-emx!chrisj
From: chrisj@ut-emx.UUCP (Chris Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: What is the nature of finder
Message-ID: <1627@ut-emx.UUCP>
Date: 7 Apr 88 14:56:12 GMT
References: <10289@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com>
Reply-To: chrisj@emx.UUCP (Chris Johnson)
Organization: U.T. Austin Computation Center
Lines: 19
Keywords: finder, mac, lawsuit

I think the question to be asked after Mr. Davidsen's posting is: 
"why isn't something like the commands and syntax of an O.S./programming
language open to be copyrighted?"  I cannot see any valid reason
that they should be unprotected.

The argument could be made, of course, that the substantive component
of the work was not the creation of the syntax and commands but the
implementation of the functionality which the syntax and commands happen
to allow the user to call upon.  Thus, one would need to demonstrate 
that the creation of these elements WAS a substantive component of the
work that created the product and, of course, that it is an individuating
element which could properly be the basis of copyright.  These requirements
seem quite reasonable to me.

If such a set of criteria were recognized we might find that among those
examples you cited, there are cases where the product SHOULD have been
copyrightable.

----Chris