🚀 go-pugleaf

From: Joachim Laubsch <unido!hpljl.hpl.hp.com!laubsch>
To: mod-ki@unido.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 90 10:23:30 pdt
Subject: <mod-ki 0563> User Interface Copyrights and Software Patents
Keywords: Diskussion, Politik

mod-ki message 0563            COPYRIGHT 1990 Hans-Werner Hein, Dortmund
************************************************************************
Return-Path: <rms@ai.mit.edu>
Date:        Thu, 28 Jun 90 22:55:38 EDT
From:        rms@ai.mit.edu
Subject:     Lotus Wins Copyright Infringement Suit
 
Our freedom to write compatible software has been taken away from us.

The effect of this lawsuit is that we will all be forced to find
different, "equally good" interfaces which the users do not already
know and will be unwilling to learn, rather than using the existing
de-facto standard interfaces.  The result: it will be impossible to
compete with an established product.

Many prominent software developers testified in this trial about the
unreasonable nature of Lotus's claim, in the light of the public
interest and the traditions of software development, but the judge
appears to have disregarded them.  From the quotation, he seems to
think that the fact that monopoly is profitable for the monopolist is
the principal justification for monopoly.

It is possible that the appeals court will give more weight to the
public interest, but far from certain.  Judges have a tendency to
treat the law as a computer program, run it, and say that whatever
answer comes out is the right answer.  (At least we programmers
sometimes fix the *program* when it doesn't meet the specs.)

So, if you thought that the courts would protect us from this
nonsense, now is the time to get involved in fixing the problem. Join
the League for Programming Freedom (info at end of message). Let's
convince Congress to pass a law to give us back the freedom to do our
jobs right.
-----

Lotus Wins Copyright Infringement Suit
By DANA KENNEDY
Associated Press Writer
 
    BOSTON (AP) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that keyboard
commands and on-screen images produced by Lotus Development Corp.'s
popular 1-2-3 spreadsheat program are protected by copyright laws.
    Paperback Software International, which lost the case along with
subcontractor Stephenson Software Ltd., argued that the copyright
applies only to the inner-workings of the software.
    In his 115-page decision, U.S. District Judge Robert Keeton
wrote that ``the user interface of 1-2-3 is its most unique element
and is the aspect that has made 1-2-3 so popular. That defendants
went to such trouble to copy that element is a testament to its
substantiality.''
    Michael Burdick, Paperback vice president of sales and
marketing, declined to comment on specifics of the lengthy decision.
    ``If (the decision) is upheld in an appeal, it will have a
serious effect on the software business,'' Burdick said. The
company will appeal the decision to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Boston, he said.
    The attorney for Lotus praised the decision.
    ``In bringing this case we sought to protect the original
creative expression that is a very large part of what people value
in our product,'' said Tom Lemberg, vice president and general
counsel of Cambridge-based Lotus.
    During the non-jury trial, which began in early February, Lotus
product managers displayed three video screens to show the
similarities in commands among Paperback Software's VP-Planner and
Mosaic's Twin Classic program.
    Because the attorney representing Mosaic fell ill during the
trial, Keeton chose to concentrate only on Paperback Software as
the defendant. It was not immediately clear Thursday if the ruling
would also apply to Mosaic.
    Defense attorneys had argued that the Lotus commands represented
``instructions for a machine rather than the expression of an
idea.''
    AP-NR-06-28-90 2118EDT
-----

               Fight "Look and Feel" Lawsuits
           Join the League for Programming Freedom
 
The League for Programming Freedom is an organization of people who
oppose the attempt to monopolize common user interfaces through "look
and feel" copyright lawsuits.  Some of us are programmers, who worry
that such monopolies will obstruct our work.  Some of us are users,
who want new computer systems to be compatible with the interfaces we
know.  Some are founders of hardware or software companies.  Some of
us are professors or researchers, including John McCarthy, Marvin
Minsky, and Guy L. Steele, Jr.
 
"Look and feel" lawsuits aim to create a new class of
government-enforced monopolies broader in scope than ever before.
Such a system of user-interface copyright would impose gratuitous
incompatibility, reduce competition, and stifle innovation.
 
We in the League hope to prevent these problems by preventing
user-interface copyright.  The League is not opposed to copyright
law as it was understood until 1986--copyright on particular
programs.  Our aim is to stop changes in the copyright system which
would take away programmers' traditional freedom to write new
programs compatible with existing programs and practices.
 
The League for Programming Freedom will act against the doctrine
behind look-and-feel suits by any means consistent with the law and
intellectual liberty.  We will write editorials, talk with public
officials, file amicus curiae briefs with the courts, and boycott
egregious offenders.  On May 24th, 1989, we picketed Lotus
headquarters on account of their lawsuits against competitors,
stimulating widespread media coverage for the issue.  If you have
other ideas, please suggest them.
 
The League is also opposed to software patents, potentially even more
dangerous than look-and-feel copyright.  Patents threaten to make
every design decision in software development a chance for a lawsuit.
However, there is no way we can get rid of them except by organizing
to make Congress hear our voice.
 
Unless new forms of monopolistic practices arise, these are the only
issues that the League plans to act on.
 
Membership dues in the League are $42 per year for programmers,
managers and professionals; $10.50 for students; $21 for others.
Please give more if you can.  The League's funds will be used for
filing briefs; for printing handouts, buttons and signs; whatever will
influence the courts, the legislators, and the people.  You won't get
anything personally for your dues--except for the freedom to write
programs.  The League is a non-profit corporation, but because it is a
lobbying organization, your contributions may not be tax-deductible.
 
We also accept corporate (nonvoting) members; please phone or write
for more information.
 
The League needs both activist members and members who only pay their
dues.
 
If you have any questions, please write to the League or phone
(617) 492-0023.
 
                       Richard Stallman, President
                       Chris Hofstader, Secretary
                       Denis Filipetti, Treasurer
 
To join, please send a check and the following information to:
 
    League for Programming Freedom
    1 Kendall Square #143
    P.O.Box 9171
    Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
 
Your name:

Your address, where we should write to you for elections and such:

The company you work for, and your position:

Your phone number and email address, so we can contact you for
demonstrations or for writing letters to Congress.  (If you don't want
us to contact you for these things, please say so; your support as a
member is helpful nonetheless.)

Is there anything about you which would enable your endorsement of the
LPF to impress the public?  For example, if you are or have been a
professor or an executive, or have written software that has a good
reputation, please tell us.

Would you like to help with LPF activities?
-----

The corporate charter of the League for Programming Freedom states:

    The purposes of the League shall be the furtherance  of  charitable,
    educational and scientific purposes which qualify as exempt ..., and
    to engage in activities to:

    1. To determine  the  existence  of,  and  warn  the  public  about,
    restrictions and monopolies on classes of  computer  programs  where
    such monopolies prevent or restrict the  right  to  develop  certain
    kinds of computer programs.

    2. To  develop  countermeasures  and  initiatives,  in  the   public
    interest, effective to block or otherwise prevent or  restrain  such
    monopolistic activities including education, research, publications,
    public assembly, legislative testimony, and  intervention  in  court
    proceedings involving public interest issues (as  a  friend  of  the
    court).

    3. To engage in any business or other activity  in  service  of  and
    related to the foregoing paragraphs that  lawfully  may  be  carried
    on...

The officers and directors of the League will  be  elected  annually  by
the members.
************************************************************************