🚀 go-pugleaf

A couple of words about "look and feel" copyright.

Apple is not claiming that any window system is going to infringe on
their creation.  Instead they do not want some other company copy
the exact MacIntosh interface that Apple spent big bucks developing.
This is just what any company would do with a product that is copied
too closely -- whether it be doll clones, or software clones.   Window
systems are still in their infancy.  There are lots of alternatives, so
there is no need to copy everything from someone else.  Maybe if the
courts prevent copying some of these companies will come up with
better interface ideas.

Another part of the problem is that the clone maker is trying to fool
the public that their product works exactly the same as the original.
A company should have the ability to protect itself and the public
from this.  One method is to call the product/company with a similar
name (how many phone related companies have 3 letters and end in "TT"
-- ATT, QTT, ITT).  This is why Apple protects Apple, Mac, etc. and
names that might be confused with those names (such as related fruits,
or sound alike names).  You might think that it is silly to expect
that people could confuse PINECONE and APPLE.  They might not, but
they would view PINECONE in a better light because of the name
similarity to APPLE (I am sure there have been Psych experiments
showing this).

Conclusion:

Quit the flaming at Apple for trying to prevent copying of its
product.  No company has to spent millions on something and then give
it away.  If you own a billion dollar company and think that Apple is
doing something wrong then I would be interested in hearing more
details.

----------------------------------------------------------------
There is no need to respond to this as this topic has already gotten
pretty boring.
----------------------------------------------------------------

In article <279@gaia.UUCP> zhahai@gaia.UUCP (Zhahai Stewart) writes:
>The major way they deserve reward for this is through people buying their
>product because it is inherently decent (in the purchasers mind), or because
>of the lead in software designed for it.  To the degree that they need to
>lock out competitors with better or cheaper products, they probably hurt us
>all; this may be justified for their innovations, but is damaging to the
>degree that they attempt to appropriate concepts they did not create, or
>which are natural or obvious.
...
>
>Look and feel copyrights are going to mess up the industry a good deal,
>I suspect.  Sad.  We shall see.              ~z~
I don't agree with this.  IBM has seen rampant copying of its PC
product.  It has meant lower prices now because of all the clones.  It
has also meant that the originator of the machine (IBM) is losing
market share and will have to abandon the standard to regain it.  The
people who are going to get messed up are those who will be abandoned.

A product introduction lead time of several months is not enough to
guarantee profit.  There are many leaks in industry and it just
doesn't take that long to crank out a hardware or software clone of
something.   Those PC-AT clones came out very quickly after the IBM
introduction of the machine.

-- 
David Neves, Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Usenet:  {allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!neves
Arpanet: neves@rsch.wisc.edu