Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:14169 comp.sys.mac:14830
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac
Subject: What is the nature of finder
Message-ID: <10289@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com>
Date: 6 Apr 88 15:30:21 GMT
Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady,NY
Lines: 50
Keywords: finder, mac, lawsuit


  Let me ask the net a question, about the nature of the finder, and how
that applies to protection.  This is NOT about any existing legal action
or copyright law, but rather about what manner of beast this finder
might be. 


  If someone writes a book and copyrights it, no one else can publish
that book, even if they reset the type, use another font, etc.  I think
this means that trivial changes don't matter.  The book is a literary
work. 

  If someone draws a picture, say a cartoon, they can copyright it. No
one else can use that character, even by redrawing the character in a
new pose. The character is a work of art.

  If someone creates a computer generated sequence of images in an
arcade game (this is called the attract mode) it is protected by
copyright. This is the origin of the "look and feel" issue, and has been upheld by the courts. This is a work of art.

  If someone creates a computer language, such as C, they can protect
their compiler but not the language itself. A computer language is a
user interface, and not protected.

  If someone creates an operating system (call it MS-DOS) which uses the
same command line prompt and most of the same commands as another
operating system (call it CP/M), is it protected? I don't think so,
since many of the commands in CP/M came from a DEC operating system, and
DEC would probably sue anybody for anything.

My question:

  Is the Mac finder a literary work? I think not. Therefore is it more a
"work of art" or a "user interface"? Is an iconic language protected
while a typed language is not?

  Let's ignore the merits of the current individual suits and discuss
the question of why is/isn't a graphics interface covered by copyright.
I think if this was a non-interactive display, it would be called a work
of art, but I am not sure why a graphics screen used as a prompt for
input is conceptually (forget legal issues here) diferent from a text
prompt, or why mouse input is diferent than keyboard input.

  I would like to hear other opinions about why the finder is a work of
art, or a user interface. 

-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me