🚀 go-pugleaf

In <khbrioINNcui@agate.berkeley.edu> adam@soda.berkeley.edu (Adam J Richter) writes:

*In article <1991Nov4.202449.12240@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> huntley@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Haydn Huntley) writes:
*>The relevant quote comes from page 3:
*>
*>	"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."
*
*	The decision that you refer to was the one that required Apple
*to use that list of features that it felt constituted copyright
*infringement.  The decision only effected the way that Apple's
*claims of copyright infringement will be tested.  It did not decide
*the question of (user interface) copyright infringement.
*

That's because there is no question.  User interfaces are protected by 
copyright, and the copyright application for the entire work establishes
copyright on the interface.  Check out Lotus v Paperback, a decision which
also rejects "look and feel" as a concept.  

Archer Sully <archer@sgi.com>	"Pretty soon we're all gonna get it
                                 Its time to buy some stuff on credit."
                                                -- Alex Chilton