🚀 go-pugleaf

/ gnu.misc.discuss / cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) / Jul 27, 1990 /
> Funny that you should chide the plaintiffs in these legal things as
> being the not-creative-enough folk.  We have right here [FSF] a pretty
> good example of a group that appears to exist *solely* to exploit other
> peoples ideas and creativity, while contributing very little, if
> anything, in that realm..

GNU programs are not clones of other programs.  Most of them are compatible
with the originals, but offer significant improvements.  And much of the
GNU software IS original (Emacs, compilers, News 3.0, etc.).

> You can turn your creativity argument around: it is pretty audacious to
> come by and take [er, uh, borrow, er, uh, share] _my_ stuff, and then
> have the audacity to argue that *I* should then go off and create
> something new [presumably so you can 'share' that, too].

Because _your_ software isn't completely original either.  If you were sued
for every bit of your software that resembled another bit of software
somewhere out there, you'd never have a chance to be creative to begin with.

> Why don't *YOU* use some of this creativity and come up with your own
> 'original ideas' and leave mine alone?

Because if your product has been "successful", tens thousands of users have
invested hundreds of thousands of hours into learning its interface.  This
does not automatically mean that your interface took much innovation.

> In that case there would be no
> litigation, LOTS of new, creative, innovative products out in the
> market: if my product is so unworthy, then why not drive mine out of
> the market by coming out with a better one, instead of just by giving
> away copies of my stuff.

They aren't copies.  They are better.  That's why customers are switching
to them, and you're suing.  And the only excuse you have for doing so is
the similarity of user interfaces.

Jacob
--
Jacob Gore		Jacob@Gore.Com			boulder!gore!jacob