Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mailrus!shadooby!accuvax.nwu.edu!mccoy From: mccoy@accuvax.nwu.edu (Jim McCoy ) Newsgroups: gnu.gcc Subject: Re: Supposed intellectual property rights. Message-ID: <765@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 11 Jun 89 05:08:04 GMT References: <8906100346.AA02699@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> <136@yaxkin.cs.utexas.edu> Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: mccoy@accuvax.nwu.edu (Jim McCoy ) Distribution: gnu Organization: Northwestern Univ. Evanston, Il. Lines: 168 A few problems with an arguement: In article <136@yaxkin.cs.utexas.edu> kelvin@cs.utexas.edu (Kelvin Thompson) writes: >In article <8906100346.AA02699@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>, rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: >> >> [Quote by somebody else and followup: counter-examples from history.] >> >> The text quoted above is misleading in another way as well: it speaks >> of "intellectual property rights" as if their existence and >> extent were generally accepted and uncontroversial. >> In fact, this is precisely what the controversy is about. > >I believe I've heard RMS say he agrees in principle with patents and >copyrights as applied to their traditional targets -- physical >inventions and written works. Under these conditions, it seems that >patents and copyrights are explicitly protecting "intellectual >property rights" -- they are allowing people to "own" ideas (or >expressions of ideas) for a period of time. > Ahhh.... Do people own ideas, or do they own an particular general implementation of an idea? >So the law clearly recognizes the *existence* of "intellectual property >rights"....and perhaps RMS does, too. The question is under what >conditions do they exist, and how far do they extend. > Exactly. >> The Constitution itself might suggest a criterion: it says that the >> purpose of copyright is, "To promote the progress of science and >> useful arts." In other words, if user-interface copyright actually >> impedes progress as many people in the field believe, it is >> unconstitutional. > >Yes, an excellent criterion. But I think disallowing all copyrights of >software would inhibit "the progress of science and art". Let's take >two examples from fictional, parallel universes: > [thinly veiled example of Thomas Edison and the lightbulb deleted] >[2] In this universe, mouse-based computer/user interfaces are rather >awkward. Hmmm.... well, it looks like we have established that the "lightbulb" in this case already exists in a useable (but maybe not as well marketed as Apple's Mac interface will soon be) form, although just not smoothed out yet. > A computer company decides that, instead of hacking out yet >another awkward interface for its new computer, it will develop an >interface that is really *right*. This seems similar to a situation where I would patent a "soft-light" bulb a few months after edison introduces his bulb, this being fair because the "soft-light" bulb is just taking off some of the ackward harshness of the lightbulb that edison already holds a patent to. > The company takes a lot of extra >time and money to explore several different ways a mouse-based >windowing system might work. It runs real, scientific tests on users >to determine what methods objectively work best for a large group of >people, as opposed to what a couple of programmers like best. Using >the results of the research, the company releases an interface that is >clearly the best around. So maybe my fictitious company decides that the "soft-light" lightbulb THAT I BASED ON SOMEONE ELSE'S SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (the only thing id did was clean up this idea a little and market it heavily, while giving no credit to the people who did the real work "...to promote the progress of science and usefull arts")is preferred by users more that the harsh, ackward light that SOMEONE ELSE INVENTED. > It would be trivial for another company to >reverse engineer the interface, It would be trivial for someone else to reverse engineer the thin film of coating on the light that was my only contribution to "the progress of science and the usefull arts". > but copyright law protects the >developer. But not in this case. I as little ability to prevent someone from making a "soft-light" lightbulb as I do in preventing someone from making a blue colored lightbulb and then claiming rights to any other lightbulb that is blue. > Without copyright protection...... [you get the idea]. Yeah, i get the idea. The idea is that copyright laws in look and feel are good because they allow some company to maek a few minor modifications in something (under licsence) and then sitting back on my laurels (and making lots of money in the process) as everyone else is prevented from doing anything that is even vaguely similar to my work, because I own the rights to the "idea" of my market-researched modifications to another idea that wasn't even mine in the first place. "[T]he progress of science and the usefull arts" has been thwarted, because no one else can try to derive something better or more usefull from my "market-researched modifications to someone else's idea" unless I can demand a cut of the potential profits of such a venture. By the time others can use my ideas in any way, shape, or form , the ideas are pathetically obsolete and useless to the "progress of science and the usefull arts". > >[To reiterate: I stipulate that these stories are fictional.] I shall make no such lies about thinly veiled situations that are of major consequence to the "progress of science and the usefull arts". You are talking about Edison and Apple. I was talking about Apple. [small section about a talk by rms] > >During the talk's Q&A segment, Stallman said that with a gun pointed to >his head, as an extreme compromise, he might be able to accept a >relatively short copyright period for software. Say 3-5 years. This >sounds ideal to me: it protects investment, but allows for public use >of the software before it is ancient history (I think one sofware year >is equivalent to about ten poem years; sort of like dogs and people.) A three (preferable) to five (more probable) year limit on the weakly supported idea of "look and feel" may be acceptable to some, but it still sets a dangerous precedent by saying that "look and feel" is something that CAN be copyrighted. This seems like something that should be done (e.g. writing to congressmen and senators urgin the modification of the copyright codes) only if "look and feel" gets a more stable foothold in interpretation of copyright law. This is less preferable because companies like Apple, Ashton-Tate, et al. have a LOT more money to spend on lobbying to protect their interests that we (those seeking software freedom) ever will. The best shot is an organized brief in the Apple suit, as the courts at least attempt to put petitioners on an equal level. > >Just think, if 3-5 years were the law, then Apple's look-and-feel -- and >much of its ROMs -- would be going free about now. Yes, and Presentation Manager, SunViews, X, and a host of other software systems would be non-existant (or only in the formative stages) because the law would explicitly prevent anyone from infringing on Apple's licsence. > >[I apologize in advance if I've misrepresented anybody's opinions.] > >-- >-- Kelvin Thompson, Lone Rider of the Apocalypse > kelvin@cs.utexas.edu {...,uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!kelvin [No apologies, no regrets.] jim ------------------------------< Jim McCoy >------------------------------------ mccoy@acns.nwu.edu | "...far too many notes for my taste" #include | -Phantom of the Opera "To thine own self be true"