🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <33080@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes:

>bruce is wandering all over the map in
>desperate attempt to support the underlying thesis: software vendors should
>be allowed to patent cosmetic aspects of programs to prevent other vendors
>from capitalizing on commonality.  much like copyrighting or patenting the
>layout of the buttons on your phone.

Perhaps you misunderstand some basic points here.

   1. The issue of protection of user interfaces has so far largely been one of
      copyrights, not patents.

   2. Many people who work in the field of computer user interfaces would not
      agree with the characterization of their work as "cosmetic".  There has
      been a lot of solid engineering achievement and a lot of creative
      accomplishment in user interface.  (That's why so many people want to
      copy them!)

   3. The issue is not whether commonality should be allowed in user
      interfaces.  The issue is whether developers should be allowed to
      appropriate anyone else's UI without compenstation.

      Everyone is free to develop a common UI and to allow anyone else to use
      it at no charge.

      If the proponents of commonality in UI's are right, then software
      customers will flock in droves to use the free common user interface
      and there will be no need to appropriate someone else's copyrighted UI.

>while he raises interesting points most of his contribution is baiting.
>or "patent nonsense".  don't be lead astray.

   I'm enjoying these personal attacks a lot!  And you need not worry so much
   about being lead astray.  Sometimes the pack is wrong.

      

			Bruce Karsh
			karsh@sgi.com