🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <146@hodge.UUCP> rusty@hodge.UUCP (Rusty Hodge) writes:
>
>Blame the Patent Office.  They granted Apple patents on several key
>parts of the user interface.  So legally, Apple can force people to
>license the interface parts covered by the patents.

I'm not so sure that Apple has ANY patents on their user interface.
Software alone is EXTREMELY difficult to patent;  what Apple did is
copyright the "Audio-visual work" which is their screen display; this
prohibits unauthorized copying (no one else can produce a display like
that without Apple's consent.)  That doesn't prohibit anyone from
having an interface that WORKS like Apple's, so long as it doesn't
LOOK like Apple's.

>
>I don't know if you've ever looked at the patents for the Telebit
>Trailblazer modems, but they are worded in such a way that they could
>almost be applied to *any* modem.  They *do* have a patent on using
>multiple carrier frequencies.  They also have a couple of patents on
>techniques used in virtually all current modems.
>
>In our law, it doesn't matter who did it first, but who got the
>patents first.
>

But a key part of patent law is "prior art".  If a patent like
that is ever challenged in court, say because the patent holder trys
to enforce it, the defendant can show that the method was not original
to the patent holder, and the patent can be invalidated.  Patents can
be invalidated for other reasons, too, such as the invention being
"obvious" -- i.e. ANYONE could have thought of it, if they had the
need.  You can't patent simply anything you want; it must be worthy of
the law's protection.  Otherwise things would get out of hand with
everyone trying to make a quick buck by patenting anything and
everything, in order to charge other people for the privledge of using
it.

Patent law exists to protect ORIGINAL, NON-OBVIOUS, and USEFUL devices,
methods and processes.  The Patent Office examines a patent when it is
filed, to insure that it conforms to these requirements.  Sometimes,
they make mistakes; the patent can be challenged and the question is
decided in court.

Copyright exists to protect works of authorship, such as books, music,
software, and visual arts including video displays.  When someone,
such as a composer, believes that someone has infringed on his
copyright, he takes them to court.  For music, the courts have set up
some pretty clear guidelines on what constitutes an infringement.  If
an average person (they don't have to be any sort of musical expert,
or have any special qualifications) can detect a substantial
similarity, and there is a reasonable chance that the alleged infringing
author had prior exposure to the other work, then the work will be
considered infringing.  A recent
example of this was the John Lennon tune "My Sweet Lord", which was
found to infringe on the copyright of the song, "He's So Fine".  It
doesn't matter that there is or isn't INTENT to copy.  The court
determined that there was a reasonable chance that Lennon had had
exposure to the tune, and the jury could hear a substantial similarity
in the music.  On the other hand, if two composers who could not have
had exposure to the other's work produce similar tunes, they would not
be found infringing, because they were produced independently.

If similary criteria are applied in this case, then a substantial
similarity in appearance to the copyrighted Apple screens could result
in a determination of infringement.  There can be no question of prior
exposure, because one of the defendants had a limited license to the 
Apple technology.  It's a matter of what criteria the court uses to
determine substantial similarity.

Please note:  The above is in no way to be construed as legal advice.
	      These are my opinions.  If you want legal advice, you
	      should consult a lawyer.  I am just a programmer who has
	      an interest in protecting his work.

Greg Wageman               
Schlumberger Technologies  UUCP: ...!decwrl!spar!snjsn1!blfca1!greg
1601 Technology Drive      ARPA: greg@blfca1.com@spar.slb.com
San Jose, CA 95110         BIX:  gwage
(408) 437-5198             CIS:  74016,352

"Nest deeply, and carry a big stack."
------------------
The opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the
author.