🚀 go-pugleaf

adam@soda.berkeley.edu (Adam J. Richter) writes:
>	Therefore, if you want to argue that Lotus should be allowed to
>prevent others from using its user interface, you must show that a
>user-interface monopoly incentive will benefit the public more than
>allowing competitors to duplicate one another's user interfaces.

I don't think this needs to be shown, since it was never true for any
patent or copyright.  In a local sense, the public is always better
off if they can get innovation for free.  Many inventions tread close
to "user interface" -- some things are just "easier to use".

There ARE other user interfaces out there, though I'm not clear on the
licensing terms.  At a minimum, there's Motif and Open Look; if the
FSF adopted either one of those, Apple would have an extremely
difficult time singling out the FSF for prosection.  This doesn't get
you any principle points, but it gets the job done.

David Chase
Sun