Xref: utzoo alt.activism:874 misc.legal:8802 comp.misc:6154
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!shelby!rutgers!mit-eddie!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.legal,comp.misc,bu.general
Subject: Re: [rms@wheaties.ai.mit.edu: Fight User Interface Copyright: Picket Lotus]
Message-ID: <2917@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 19 May 89 17:51:51 GMT
References: <31234@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <2889@buengc.BU.EDU> <31414@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 71

In article <31414@bu-cs.BU.EDU> tower@bu-it.bu.edu (Leonard H. Tower
Jr.) writes:
>Houghton doesn't show a lot of understanding of intellectual property
>law.

I know plagiarism when I see it.  Tell me you're better.  Anyone?

(Disclaimer:  I'm not a Patent Lawyer, but I play one on the net...:)

>He also has a view towards rights that is very individualistic and
>ignores the fact that almost all rights are granted by society.

A libertarian I'm not, but I want to protect my income, especially
when it's earned through inventiveness.

>	"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.
                 ^^^^^^^-pagewarp...
>It will provide the start of a background to intelligently discuss the
>issue.

From a biased viewpoint, judging by the title...

(Further Disclaimer:  I'm not a Federal Judge, but I play one
on the net... :-)

>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.

4 out of 5 doctors, or something like that.  Define 'misuse'.  Does it
include, as it may come to, if legislation prevents protection of this
sort of 'intellectual property' (and a more nebulous term never was
wrought),...where was I?  Oh, yeah.  Does 'misuse' include collecting
royalties on and controlling production of original creations?

Sounds like it would break most of the current patent and copyright
laws right in half.

>Some feel that patenting is more appropriate.

If there's a thing to agree on, it's this.  I just fail to see that
there's an enormous difference between the copyright of the image
and the patent of the systemics, and why one would agree to one and
not to the other...

>Most of the present problems in this area come from the fact that
>computer technology, especially software, is very different from other
>intellectual property.

Different, maybe, but only in its ease of alteration and dissemination.
Otherwise, it's chemical formulae and process control and algorithms
and all that blort that's gone before it...and any blues singer can
change a few notes...

>Congress and most courts have yet to truly
>appreciate just how it differs and exactly what it is.

Well, we could go on for DAYS about the speed of light in an
electromagnetic-field-free vacuum... :-)

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

Gee.  Should I add alt.sex.binaries to the newsgroups line?  ;-d

				--Blair
				  "Disclaimer:  I'm not a look
				   and feel, but I play one on
				   the net..."