🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <66709@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes:
>In article <58801@bbn.BBN.COM> pplacewa@bbn.com (Paul Placeway) writes:
>>karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes:
>
>>On the other hand, "Look and Feel" is a recent, and not fully
>>established concept.  Further, it is not yet clear if there is any
>>protection for pure algorithms.
>
>It's new for software, but it's been in effect for other areas for a long
>time.  For instance, music copyrights.  Also, there is an analogue to
>look and feel protection in publishing.  You are not allowed to steal
>someone else's book by making simple changes to names, places, etc.  If
>you write substantially the same book, even if not one name is the same,
>you will infringe.

If you copy, for instance, 1-2-3 by simply changing its name,
giving it a new title screen, etc., you will also be clearly
breaking the law.

Your analogies are completely out of whack.  There is no
look-and-feel protection in publishing.  Look at how many
cheap Lord of the Rings clones there are in the fantasy
market.  Many detective stories written by different
authors have the same sort of grim-n-gritty look and feel.

Nobody is suggesting that copying somebody else's program
code should be legal.  However, these are the sort of
comparisons you are making in these ``other areas.''

---
chi@tybalt.caltech.edu		Curt Hagenlocher
Hal Eisner is stupid