🚀 go-pugleaf

jasona@sugar.hackercorp.com (Jason Asbahr) writes:

   The GNU guys probably *could* whip up a better desktop idea, but that's
   not the point.

Then I'm confused by Richard's claim that GNU cannot implement a desktop
interface because of Apple's litigation.

   Old ideas about property rights are being stretched to fit entities
   that can be completely fluid, mutatable, and infinitely duplicated.

Granted.  However, it does not necessarily follow from the fact the old
laws do not fit too well, that the whole idea of property rights should
thus be thrown out with respect to those entities.  This is where I think
I have political disagreements with Richard.  I support copyrights, and
design patents, and so on.  I just think that the laws need to be extended
and revised to fit reality, not thrown out.

After all, there are things besides software that don't fit too well, such
as:

 - Musical recordings (especially on digital media)
 - Printed materials (thanks to photocopy technology)
 - Audiovisual works (movies, broadcasts, etc.)

On all of these, there are still bugs in how the law applies to them, but
few people are suggesting that the ease of copying them means that they
should be free, and that anyone should be free to plagiarize them.

   However, it's not as simple as the phrase "look-and-feel" might indicate.

True.

   What would have happened if Ford had copyrighted the "steering
   wheel" metaphor back in the days of the Model-T?

Well, a patent would have been more likely, but in any case, either
other manufacturers would have licensed it from Ford, or developed
other ways of steering cars.  This would not have necessarily been a
bad thing.  For example, given power assisted steering, I'd probably
prefer a steering yoke to a conventional steering wheel.

   What would happen if they tried to do that now?

They'd probably run into a statute of limitations, much as Xerox did.

   If Ford had done this in the early days, all other manufacturers would
   have had to come up with something completely different.  (Take a minute
   to picture alternate ideas -- amusing!)

Perhaps amusing, perhaps rewarding, but we'll probably never know--since
no one had incentive to innovate with steering controls, there has been
no material improvement since the Model T.  Is this a good thing?  Hard
to say.

   Since Ford dominated most of the
   market and most drivers learned to drive in Ford automobiles, companies
   who offered products that *required the user to relearn driving* would 
   have lost out.

By this logic, Apple should have "lost out" because of its lack of a
command line interface.  And, to some people, it has.  Others,
however, have either found it worthwhile to invest the additional
learning time, or have learned to use the Macintosh where they would
not have learned to use a CLI based system.  Likewise, steering wheel
alternatives would have been viable if they offered an advantage over
Ford's idea, since it would be worth it to some prior drivers, and
again to some who would not be willing to learn to use a steering
wheel.  Consider a steering control which only required the use of a
single hand, for example.  Some of my handicapped friends would find
such a thing well worth the extra hassle.

   Companies that redesigned the car "user interface"
   would lose out in the end because of the massive installed Ford userbase
   that doesn't want to relearn driving...no matter how much better the
   competitors' designs may be!

I still think this logic works against Apple as much or more than it works
for them.

   It is possible for the GNU guys
   (or anyone else) to write a faster word processor with DWA-style commands
   and even include lots of nifty features from the juicy alternatives, but
   what's the use if you are not legally allowed to distribute it?

On the other hand, what's the use of going through the effort and
expense of putting together a really good piece of software, if anyone
else can come by and take your design, lock, stock, and barrel,
without even giving you the time of day?  It's like writing a novel
and having anyone be able to publish it.  Why should Apple, which has
invested millions of dollars and thousands of hours into user interface
research, foot the design bill for the rest of the industry?

   If Apple, Lotus, and the like win precedent-setting court cases over
   software similarity, then (as RMS pointed out) the GNU project is doomed.

Only if their goal is to produce the same thing as everyone else.  If GNU is
going to be just another UNIX, why bother?

--
Amanda Walker						      amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc.					...!uunet!visix!amanda
-- 
Research causes cancer in laboratory animals.