Xref: utzoo misc.legal:4505 comp.sys.ibm.pc:14292 comp.sys.mac:14949 comp.sys.apple:5312
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!darryl
From: darryl@ism780c.UUCP (Darryl Richman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Windows/Mac Copyrights
Message-ID: <9691@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: 9 Apr 88 18:09:17 GMT
References: <5480@well.UUCP> <4092@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <1719@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> <1454@csib.csi.UUCP> <7987@sol.ARPA> <4795@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> <1457@csib.csi.UUCP> <337@dbase.UUCP> <26342@cca.CCA.COM> <343@dbase.UUCP>
Reply-To: darryl@ism780c.UUCP (Darryl Richman)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica CA
Lines: 48

In article <343@dbase.UUCP> tessler@dbase.UUCP (Steven Tessler) writes:
<In article <26342@cca.CCA.COM> dee@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) writes:
<>The line between idea and express is by no means clear.  First of all, a
<
<The line between an idea and an expression of an idea is distinguishable
<in copyright law.

Unfortunately, it is not particularly made clear by copyright law.  In
fact, there was a specific decision that indicated that a firm line
could not be drawn and that the trier (judge or jury) of the case had
to decide individually.  This point was noted in my background article.

<>on record where someone programmed a software package for a dental
<>office in one language where they retained the copyright and licensed
<>the use of the software.  The office then totally re-coded it in BASIC
<>and proceeded to sell it but with the same general menu sequences, flow
<>of control, data organization, etc.
<>...The "expression" included the organization of the program and the
<>"idea", which could not be copyrighted, was the general idea of a dental
<>office package and the general services it offered.
<
<The analysis of the logical/physical data flows of a business is not the 
<the creation on an idea but rather the documentation of an existing system.
<The automation idea is still an idea which cannot be copyrighted.
<Only the expression of the idea is can be copyrighted!  
<
<(Please cite the specific case to afford additional inquiry.)

This case is Jaslow v. Whelan.  It was also cited in my background
article.  If you can't find it, send me a request and I'll send it
back.  In this case, Whelan Associates produced part of a dental
office system, but never did satisfactorily complete the work.  Jaslow
Dental Labs, who had paid for the work, got tired of waiting and hired
a teenager to recode the application and get it going, which he did.

This decision was quite broad, and I think a case could be
made that many Mac applications, which are based on the event loop
program that Apple has copyrighted, may be violations.  Especially
the simpler text editors, which are but derivative works of the
Apple editor that was also published as a programming guideline
(and duly copyrighted).

		--Darryl Richman
-- 
Copyright (c) 1988 Darryl Richman. The views expressed are the author's alone.
	  INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation -- An Eastman Kodak Company
       ...!{cca!ima | sdcrdcf}!ism780c!darryl or darryl@ism780c.isc.com
"I'm disappointed too, but keep in mind that Transmogrification is a new technology." --Calvin