🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Nov17.151222.21312@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> huntley@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Haydn Huntley) writes:
>I wish the above parties would read the summary of proceedings
>published on May 20, 1991 in the Daily Appellate Report of the Los
>Angeles Daily Journal.  (If anyone would like an ASCII copy, just
>email a request and I'll email it to you!)  On about the third page it
>says:  "Implicit in Judge Schwarzer's approach to the case is a
>rejection of Apple's fundamental contention that the 'total concept
>and feel' of the Macintosh graphic user interface is protectible
>expression."

	As I have explained to you before, "total concept and
feel" is not equal to "look and feel", which is not equal to
"user interface copyright."  The effect of that decision was merely
that Apple's list of offending NewWave and MS-Windows features would
be used to specify Apple's claims of infringement, rather than the
more vague test for overall similarness in the "total concept
and feel."  To see this, read the paragraphs that precede the line that
you quote from the LA Daily Journal.  If you want to better understand
terminology like "total concept and feel", so as to avoid making such
gross misinterpretations in the future, read Pamela Sameulson's May 1989
_Communications of the ACM_ article.  Pamela Samuelson is an intellectual
property law professor (and attorney) at the University of Pittsburgh.

Adam J. Richter			adam@soda.berkeley.edu
409 Evelyn Avenue, Apt. 312	....!ucbvax!soda!adam
Albany, CA 94706		(510)528-3209