🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

However, it was mentioned somewhere in this thread that the Videogame lawsuits were OK
because they were covering the artistic expression and not simply the basic idea.  This
argument is identical when covering specific combinations and designs of user interfaces---
despite many opinions to the contrary, a user interface is NOT trivial to design and
requires much effort to make it right.  Although I use gnu emacs, I certainly wouldn't
say that it had much of a user interface.  Apple has gone to much effort (excessive by
some accounts) to make an effective and logical user interface.  It is clear that this
effort should be protected.  It is also clear that the lawsuit is an attempt to protect
the details of expression which Apple labored so hard to perfect.

There are certainly limits to what should be protected.  Clearly there are strong opinions
on all aspects of this topic as to where the line is.

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

Interesting---first time I've seen anything other than bash Apple coming from the
LPF Boycott Committee...

 -- Kevin


--
kevin@umunhum.Stanford.EDU
kevinw@leland.Stanford.EDU