🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1991Oct31.225423.26793@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> kevin@simd.stanford.edu (Kevin W. Rudd) writes:

*In article <FRIEDMAN.91Oct31162749@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu> friedman@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes:
*>In article <31OCT199101462431@minnie.me.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
*>   Interface copyrights are merely another monopoly-oriented device.  The
*>fact is that once an interface becomes a defacto standard then people will
*>want to continue using the same interface.  (I notice that a number of
*>interactive programs (including programs not written by the FSF) are
*>starting to use the Emacs command set for editing.  People benefit by this
*>because it's an easy set of commands to learn and because they get uniform
*>interfaces that way.  How would they benefit if the FSF had (god forbid)
*>copyrighted the interface?)
*

*I believe that Lotus claimed not that Paperback Software used the
*general command structure of 1-2-3 but that they used the exact same
*menu structure, command shortcuts, and screen layout as 1-2-3 such
*that one could not physically tell the difference.  It seems to me
*that both sides made some wrong choices---PS probably shouldn't have
*tried to build an exact clone, but Lotus certainly went overboard. 

VP Planner (the program written by Stevenson and published by
Paperback) was originally not a Lotus clone.  The interface was
changed at the insistence of Paperback, who said the product would
never sell unless it was an exact clone.

Here are some interesting quotes from Judge Keeton in Lotus v
Paperback:

On people who advocate either ridiculously restrictive copyright or no
copyright on interfaces:

"There is risk for each advocate, however, in yielding too readily to
these respective incentives.  The argument of an advocate who presses
too far in one or the other of these directions of generality or
specificity in defining the idea will not only lose the argument
advavced but also lose credibility for later advancing a more sensible
alternative that proposes a less extreme but still favorable poition
along the scale.  Upon reflection, then, advocates on both sides will
be - or atleast should be -- encouraged to moderate their ultra
contentious and extreme positions in favor of more supportable
propositions that will more sharply focus the issue for adjudication."

On "look and feel":

"Despite its widespread use in public discourse on the copyrighability
of nonliteral elements of computer programs, I have not found the
'look and feel' concept, standing alone, to be significantly helpful
in distinguishing between nonliteral elements of a computer program
that are copyrightable and those that are not."

Finally, on what is actually copyrightable:

"Accordingly, the menu structure, taken as a whole -- including the
choice of command terms, the structure and order of those terms, their
presentation on the screen, and the long prompts -- ... meets the
requirements of the second element of the legal test for
copyrightability."



"Make your heart a sword, not a spoon."
		-- Rosa

Archer Sully <archer@sgi.com>