🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <RJC.91May5082928@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk> rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Caley) writes:

   I think there is a difference of levels here. Copyright on musical
   recordings stops people from literally copying the recording. So
   transfering that to software would mean stopping people literally
   copying a program. 

It also prevents people from performing it, or anything sufficiently
similar, without permission from the original copyright holder.

   Copyright on music does not stop one writing a similar piece of music
   and recording and selling that.  Similarly copyright on books does not
   stop one writing a book with a similar plot. 

No, but there are standards for how similar you are allowed to get.

That being said, let me reiterate something: I think that the
particulars of the Microsoft suit are pretty stupid, and I will be
surprised if Apple wins (they've already lost the more important of
their possible precedent-setting claims).  However, I do support their
right to protect their intellectual work, and the concept of
intellectual property in general.  I think the Macintosh was a
significant innovation, and I think that they are entitled to the
rewards of that innovation.  As Richard is no doubt all to aware of by
now, I don't agree with the FSF position on "software hoarding." :)

   I _do_ objewct to copyright which stops me writing a totally new
   and independent program which happens to look like something on a
   Mac.

"something like a Mac" does not seem to be much of a problem.  Most window
systems and desktop interfaces are "something like a Mac."  The problem
comes when you want to write something "*just* like a Mac."

   Anyone who manages to completely copy a good user interface
   has put about as much effort into it as the original developer did. It
   would almost always be better to come up with an improved UI based on
   the existing one but correcting some of its misfeatures.

I agree completely.

   No, its more like writing a spy thriller and finding out that anyone
   else can also write a spy thriller.

But nobody can write a James Bond thriller unless the Fleming Estate
says so...

   For the same reason that Apple was allowed to `steal' the results of
   Xerox's UI research. BEcause looking at a product and producing
   something which performs a similar job is not usually considered
   theft. 

Well, having used Xerox Altos, Stars, and D-machines, I'd have to say
that the Macintosh is more different from them than most of the other
comparisons we have been making.  However, I'm not arguing that you
shouldn't be able to make a product that's inspired by someone else's
product--only that you shouldn't be able to build one just like it.
Granted, metrics for how close is too close are hard.  That's part of
what the Apple-Microsoft suit will end up setting precedents for.

   It might work... well, ok, so that would be so novel it couldn't
   possibly be seen as a copy of Unix.

Cute :).
--
Amanda Walker						      amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc.					...!uunet!visix!amanda
-- 
When you are not looking at it, this posting is in French.