🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <31OCT199101462431@minnie.me.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>In article <FRIEDMAN.91Oct28164525@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, friedman@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes...
>>   What I find *really* slimy is that Apple has these really slick
>>advertisements for their Mac-2's and add, with a withering sneer, "and the
>>mac can run MS-DOS software too!"  How can any halfway-ethical company sue
>>a company for trying to write compatible software and then turn around and
>>support that companies' original software?  Don't you detect a double
>>standard there?
>
>What is relevant to the comment made by Noah Friedman regarding MS-DOS
>is that the emulator that runs on the Mac (SoftPC by Insignia Systems)
>includes a legal copy of MS-DOS v.3.3.   Insignia pays the same license
>fees/royalties to Microsoft that any other PC clone vendor does for the 
>right to include copyrighted Microsoft software with its product.

   My mistake.  I didn't know that this was the case.  

>The recent Apple-IBM agreement is the latest example of this thinking.
>Here we have two big companies with large investments in original 
>research and development who have cross-licensed significant 
>portions of their technology to each other.
>
>In the real world, this sort of practice makes sense because it
>serves the mutual self-interest of those who engage in R&D.

   I see it as an attempt to corner the market in computer hardware and
software, to raise prices on both, and to squash out any potential
competition in the future.

   As a professional programmer, do you want to necessarily be forced to
work for a large corporation that will deny you ownership of the work you
create?  Once there is a critical mass of patents owned by large
corporations, it will be impossible to write a good program and distribute
it on your own because of all the patents you might violate.

   Software patents will not largely fall into the hands of individual
people.  They will aggregate in large corporations who will then have a
monopoly on ideas and will grow by forcing their employees to sign away
their rights to anything they produce.

   Besides, there are two interests that our government has to protect.
They have to protect business interests (by import tariffs, etc.) and they
have to protect the general public against trusts and other "unethical"
practices.  I think granting software patents to businesses will give large
corporations that already have a head start an unfair advantage against
smaller startup companies and will serve to raise prices and screw
customers. 

   In a similar fashion, I don't believe that interface copyrights deserve
consideration.  The actual designing of most interfaces is simply not that
difficult.  What most of that investment goes into is *coding* the
interface.  If two companies independently write code to implement the same
interface, they haven't really stolen anything from each other.

   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?)

   Companies that offer a gratuitously different interface to a program
that might or might not do the same thing are likely not to get a lot of
interest unless there's something really otherwise special about the
program.  And I haven't seen that many programs on the market that are all
that astonishing or innovative.  But they're useful tools and they help
people get their jobs done.  I think that's the most important thing.

>It is often argued by LPF/FSF apologists that the fact that Macintosh
>was developed before the legal concept of "user interface" copyright
>was established proves that such guarantees are not necessary to 
>ensure the continued innovation in the computer industry.
>
>This begs the question.

   I don't see how it begs the question at all.  There is ample historical
precedent to show that this is the case.  

   However, I think that once companies get used to the idea of having
interface copyrights and software patents they will not want to give them
up, and will probably complain that they won't survive without it. 

   That's simple human behavior.  People can't miss what they've never had,
but once they've had a taste of something they like they will not willingly
give it up.  I don't think it's too late to stop feeding corporate greed in
this way. 

>Witness the demise of the company that introduced "Visi-Calc".  
>
>This was a company that introduced a concept that changed the world 
>-- that changed the way we live and work.  They were briefly rewarded 
>with commercial success as businesses snapped up the new Apple II's 
>(remember Apple?) to run this incredible new business tool, only to 
>be swamped by the combination of IBM, who copied Apple's invention 
>of the personal computer, and Lotus, who copied Visi-Calc and added 
>insult to injury by claiming the right to sue anyone who did the 
>same to them.
>
>This is context in which "evil" Apple developed the Macintosh.

   (For the record, the LPF is urging a boycott of Lotus just as much as
they are of Apple)

   The reason why 1-2-3 was so successful was that it was an improvement on
VisiCalc.  Yes, the user interface for 1-2-3 was derived from VisiCalc's.
No one thought this was a bad idea.  Certainly Lotus didn't, and I never
heard of VisiCalc's author(s) complaining about it.  

   But Lotus' lawsuits are indeed bad.  Even Mitch Kapor disapproves of the
current situation.

>So you might get it without paying money, or you might pay money to
>get it?   Speaking from the perspective of one who is actually foolish
>enough to pay shareware fees, I find it incredible that anyone could
>consider describing a completely voluntary payment plan as a viable
>way of raising funds to cover programming costs.

   And yet it works.  The FSF receives donations from hardware
manufacturers who want GNU software to run on their machines, and people do
buy tapes.  And not only does the FSF allow people to redistribute GNU
software, but they also allow people to republish and resell their printed
manuals.  Even so, the FSF generates reasonable revenue from hardcopy
documentation.  Restrictive copyrights and licenses are not necessary for a
software manufacturer to survive.  True, they might make less money but
they won't go bankrupt. 

   The hardware manufacturers who donate money to the FSF probably figure
that having free software that runs on their machines will enhance that
hardware's value, because people will see the numerous advantages of free
software over proprietary programs.

   But the FSF will not be able to finish the GNU project if the number of
patents and interface copyrights increase.  With an entire operating
system, applications and all, there's no question that at least one patent
will be infringed upon.  Licensing is out of the question (because then the
software would not longer be free), and the FSF cannot afford any lawsuits.

>But if it is reasonable for Stallman to fantasize that people 
>who donate money to FSF are somehow "paying" for free software, 
>I think that it is equally fair to point out that the commercial 
>world has its own way of sharing ideas.  

   Whatever the commercial world is doing, I wouldn't call it "sharing."
Interface copyrights and software patents are a farce, and it's appalling
that our government lets anyone get away with it. 

---
Noah Friedman
friedman@prep.ai.mit.edu
(Speaking only my own opinions)