🚀 go-pugleaf

gj@psychiatry.sm.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) writes:

>< Steve Simmons writes 
>< jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>< 
>< >Well, what *has* the court granted a monopoly on?
>< 
>< On exactly Lotus 1-2-3.

>On which release? All releases? All future releases (with added features)?

I really shouldn't have responded to the first; the proper answer was 'get a
copy of the decision and read it.'  I have not done so.  Please bear in mind
that I originally posted my summary of someone elses summary of the decision.

Having said that, I now trespass further into the swamp . . . from reading
the other guy's summary the court granted Lotus 1-2-3 a copyright on
Lotus 1-2-3.  Going back to the car analogy: the court said that round
steering wheels aren't copywritable; speedometers with needles aren't
copyrightable; but the overall design of an instrument cluster *is*.  If
you duplicate someone elses instrument cluster right down to the last
iota (especially if you are dumb enough to (a) admit it and (b) advertise
it, then you have violated their design copyright.

[["I'll sell you a Buick Riviera made by a 3rd party in Wango Tango for
only $19.99!  Looks and drives exactly like a Buick Riviera!]]

Actually, IMHO this portends badly for Apple's look and feel lawsuit.  By
establishing precedence that features which are obvious, utilitarian, or
not suseptable to reasonable alternatives are not copyrightable, Apple may
be doomed in their attempt to lock up certian types of menus, etc.

And if you have any more questions, read the article I sited and read the
decision.  I'm done talking about things I don't know about.  :-)