Xref: utzoo comp.misc:6144 alt.activism:866 misc.legal:8780
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!shelby!rutgers!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!tower
From: tower@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,alt.activism,bu.general,ne.general,misc.legal
Subject: Re: [rms@wheaties.ai.mit.edu: Fight User Interface Copyright: Picket Lotus]
Message-ID: <31414@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 18 May 89 23:02:14 GMT
References: <31234@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <2889@buengc.BU.EDU>
Reply-To: tower@bu-it.bu.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Information Technology, Boston University,
       111 Cummington Street, Boston, MA 02215, USA +1 (617) 353-2780
Lines: 40

In article <2889@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
 ... a lot of argument about Stallman call to picket Lotus on May 24th
to protest Lotus' look and feel suit.

Houghton doesn't show a lot of understanding of intellectual property
law.  Or of the reasons the Founding Fathers provided for it in the
Constitution, and why, when, and what Congress has done since then on
the issue.  He also has a view towards rights that is very
individualistic and ignores the fact that almost all rights are
granted by society.

I refer those who are interested in this issue to:
	"Why the Look and Feel of Software User Interfaces Should Not
Be Protected by Copyright Law", Pamela Samuelson, CACM (Communications
of the ACM), pp 663-574, May 1989, Vol 32, No 5.

It will provide the start of a background to intelligently discuss the
issue.

Most professionals involved in this area (both lawyers and
computerists) who aren't working for a company trying to misuse
copyright to protect user interfaces, agree that copyrighting them is
wrong.

Some feel that patenting is more appropriate.  Some that a 4th kind of
intellectual property is needed.  Some that all looks and feels should
stay in the public domain.  There have been court case supporting all
of these views as well as the copyright one.

Most of the present problems in this area come from the fact that
computer technology, especially software, is very different from other
intellectual property.  Congress and most courts have yet to truly
appreciate just how it differs and exactly what it is.

I suspect that the issue is headed back to Congress.  If not, the
Supreme Court will sort it all out.

enjoy -len

PS: All looks and feels should be in the public domain.	;-}