🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <58346@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes:

	[ ... on spreadsheet uset interface design being trivial ... ]

   I guess I'm not understanding the point here: if it is a
   zero-creativity, unimportant nobrainer, then why would anyone take
   Lotus's?  If it is so easy to invent, and implement, your own, why not
   just do it and not use someone else's?

The rhteotical question is answered easily: because it has market value
in that it is easily recognized by the public. The law recognizes that
such things do have a value (e.g. the Coke bottle) as they embody a
marketing investment, and as trademark and industrial design protection,
which is fine, because it is a fairly weak form of protection under
certain aspects.

The horrible thing is that Lotus is trying to *copyright* the 1-2-3 user
interface, which lasts nearly forever, an is trying to push the idea
that all its *derivatives* are also copyrighted. Copyrights are so long
lasting and they cover derivatives because they protect an expression,
not an idea, and expression has been traditionally very carefully and
narrowly defined -- indeed when an idea can only be expressed in one
way, that way cannot be copyrighted at all.

Stallman is against the granting of temporary or permanent hoarding
rights on any form of intellectual property, but even he recognizes that
there has been a rationale in providing incentives by the granting of
very temporary monopolies.

What Lotus and Apple are trying to do is to expand the scope of the
existing law in an unanticipated way, not unlike attempts to extend
patent protection to algorithms and mathematics using various disguises,
and without public discussion and legislation.

All the arguments used by the big manufacturers, in this as in the EEC
granting of exclusive rights on interfaces, reek very much of the very
rational arguments used by guilds to restrict entry to trades and
professions in the dark ages.

I am not joking here; in the UK the BCS (the equivalent of the ACM) has
been working very hard to make programming (at least, initially, in only
certain cases) legal only for government (thru the BCS itself, of
course) licensed programmers. Many Universities in the UK are very keen
on this scheme because the best way (or even a requirement) to get a
programmer's license would be having a CS degree from an "accredited" UK
(foreigners need not apply...) University, with obvious implications.
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk