🚀 go-pugleaf

rms@dist.dist.unige.it (Richard M Stallman) writes:
>Besides, Apple *made the decision* to develop the Mac knowing full
>well that, at the time, everyone agreed that interfaces could not be
>copyrighted.  So you can't say people won't make that kind of
>investment without more monopolies.

This is not clear. Remember, Xerox thought -- at the time -- that user
interfaces were copyrightable, since they both restricted access to
their developments (since such disclosure might be considered to reduce
their rights) and required licenses before they disclosed most of their
developments. Apple isn't the first company to claim that user
interfaces can be copyrighted; in fact, there were successful lawsuits
on the subject before the Macintosh came out (mostly in the video-game
area). 

>I agree that patents are the worse problem.

>    >Because of this, why doesn't the FSF/LPF boycott all of the companies
>    >which are patenting algorithms?  Wouldn't that be symmetric?

>It would be symmetric, but it wouldn't make sense as a plan of action.
>Every major company in the computer field (both computer makers and
>software companies) has patents, and many smaller ones too.
>Boycotting everyone is not practical.

>But if a computer company actually sues someone for patent
>infringement by software, it might make sense to boycott them.  (It
>would have to be a case-by-case decision.)  Not many companies will
>actually do this, so we would not boycott very many companies in this
>way.

I disagree; patent infringement has no requirement of active prosecution
unlike look-and-feel copyrights. The fact that the patent-holders are
merely threatening now and not suing doesn't stop them from suing later.
The fact that Apple isn't suing anyone but HP and Microsoft presents a
significant barrier to later lawsuits against other GUI's, since it's
clear that 1) they know their rights (or what they feel to be their
rights), 2) they know of the existance of the other GUI's (or should,
since any player in the computer business should know of most of them),
and 3) they have willingly allowed these other interfaces to exist, when
active prosecution of the infringement is required. Boycotting Apple may
have been a good idea when we didn't know if they would sue other
vendors (if you think boycotts are useful in this area at all, which I
don't); it certainly isn't now that we can be pretty sure Apple won't
claim other GUI's to be an infringement. Boycotting the software patent
holders (again, if you think boycotts are useful) is a perfectly
reasonable step, since mere threats by most of them will stop most
people from using the contested patent and since patents can be
selectively defended with no loss of rights. 

Claiming that, because everyone is doing it, we cannot act on all of the
cases is plainly silly. If my rights are being trampled by a host of
people, that doesn't somehow make it more acceptable than if just one
person is acting to trample them. As Dr. Stallman says, if we just write
software and ignore the legal issues, we may find that the whole thing
has been wasted effort. Continuing, then, to support the worst offenders
in the software patent area is not a wise course of action, whether or
not boycotting them would take away most useful target platforms. What's
the use of a target platform if the rights to use the software can be
easily taken away?

--John

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John L. Coolidge     Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu   UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge
Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself)
Copyright 1991 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed.
You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.