Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!gateway!RELAY.NSWC.NAVY.MIL!dsill
From: dsill@RELAY.NSWC.NAVY.MIL
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: look and feel
Message-ID: <37465@bbn.COM>
Date: 20 Mar 89 16:37:14 GMT
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Organization: BBN news/mail gateway
Lines: 69

Let me first say that I was not taking sides in my previous posting on
this topic, merely pointing out what I considered the two sides of the
coin.

Mark Colburn writes:
>I, personally, am not particularly excited about this ruling.  It would be 
>kind of like Ford suing Chrysler because they have cars which kind of look 
>the same: the both have four wheels, steering wheels on the left side, two 
>seats up front, doors, etc.  That would be look and feel kind of things.  

Yes, I agree that it would be catastrophic for the L&F issue to get so
far out of hand, but my point was that if it *did* I don't think it
would be long at all before we realized that strict enforcement of
such policy is detrimental to everyone involved.  That realization
would cause the kind of shake-up in our copyright laws that's
necessary to really fix the problem.

>Imagine what would happen if all of those companies started using variations
>of Xerox's Window/Mouse/Icon interface...  You'd wind up with things like 
>Macintosh, Xwindows, Sunview, ...   That would be pretty bad I suppose, so
>we should make sure that Xerox doesn't spend that money :-)  Sombody should
>call up Xerox and tell them not to develop an interface, quick.  A little 
>late I think.
>
>Sorry for the sarcasm, but most of the windowing interface innovation which
>has come about in the last few years has been a result of the work done at
>Xerox PARC.  Most of the work centered around Smalltalk.  A lot of the
>non-bit-mapped interfaces also came from there as well, such as scroll
>bars, pull-down and pop-up menus, etc.

Right, but my point was that from a corporate point-of-view Xerox lost
out in a big way.  Now, that was probably not a result of Xerox's
inability to prevent the competition from "borrowing" their technology.

>For the most part, the clone and compatible are used interchangably in the
>computer industry.  And even then you have the problem of defining just how
>compatible.  Computer hardware and software vendors use the term compatible
>because it has a better connotation that a "clone."

I intended "clone" and "compatible" in the true sense.  I.e., a clone
is substantially identical in every way to the original, perhaps
differing in nameplate, color scheme, manufacturing technique, etc.
Whereas a compatible is similar to the original in many areas, it
differs substantially in at least one functional area.  To reuse the
already cliche automobile analogy, Fords and Chryslers are compatible
to the extent that the major controls are similar; but they aren't
clones, there are no Fords that look and operate just like a Chrysler.
But let's consider Firebirds and Camaros.  In most cases, they differ
only in name, sheetmetal, and trim: they are essentially the same car.
They're clones.

And this is my point: whether you favor strict protection of corporate
investments in R&D, or the free flow of technology and information,
the current copyright law is inadequate, particularly when it comes to
software.  Remember, too, that it's copyright law that keeps free
software free; and if that law is incapable of protecting proprietary
software, it's also incapable of protecting free software.

Personally, I think it's foolish to expect our capitalist society to
become socialist overnight, just because of the Look and Feel issue.
I support the Free Software Foundation as much as the next guy, but
I'm not betting that the software industry will up and convert to the
free approach anytime soon.

The opinions above are mine.

so.cial.ism \'so--sh*-.liz-*m\ n 1: any of various economic and political
   theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration
   of the means of production and distribution of goods.  (Webster's 7th ed.)