🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3NOV199113201381@minnie.me.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>Wow, indeed.  Haven't heard from Adam since he sent me that great button 
>showing Apple Computer as a giant snake with bared fangs!

	For the record, Bill Johnston sent me his address for the
specific purpose of receiving LPF literature.  I sent him one of
everything that I had multiplie copies of: the position papers,
two fliers, a sticker, and a button.

>The Apple vs. Microsoft/HP lawsuit is not a test case on the principle 
>of validity of UI copyright, and no amount of posturing will make it so.

	To the best of my knowledge Microsoft and HP haven't used
the "UI copyright" keyword in defending themselves.  However, they
are arguing that copyright law does not cover the types of claims
that Apple is making.  It would be almost impossible for a judge to
rule in favor of this argument without contradicting most, if not all,
of the UI copyright doctrine.

	While it is true that both Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard
have raised defenses that would enable the judge to rule in
their favor without breaking the UI copyright precedent, it appears
to me that the lawsuit's course is such that the judge will have to
rule on UI copyright (e.g., the judge seems to be rejecting the
arguments that Xerox developed most of what Apple is suing over
and Microsoft's actions are covered by a contract with Apple).
The lawsuit is very  much a "test case on the principle of validity
of UI copyright."

>The legal dispute concerns the terms of an agreement that MS signed 
>with Apple to license parts of their user interface.

	You are dead wrong.  That is only one of the many arguments
raised by one of the defendants (Microsoft).  What do you think
Apple's cause of action is again Hewlett-Packard?

>The act of making such an agreement acknowledges that legitimacy of
>user interface copyright, and specifically acknowledges that Apple
>owned rights to the material licensed. 

	No.  Making such an agreement merely indicates that Microsoft
thought	that it would be cheaper to sign the agreement than to risk
having to fight an unfounded lawsuit that microsoft might even lose
due to the technical ignorance within the courts.

>Indeed, if one considers the REAL issue,
>their is little difference between what the companies are willing to 
>do to protect market share. 

	No.  There really is a fundamental difference between the
Apple/Lotus camp and most other companies.  Apple and Lotus are
attempting to manipulate the legal system to set new monopolistic
precedents.  Most other major software companies aren't trying to
establish new precedents or even using Lotus's precedent to sue
anyone.  It is perfectly reasonable and proper for the LPF to identify
the worst offenders and do what they can to avoid funding them.

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