🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <RANG.90Jul14170933@derby.cs.wisc.edu> you write:
...
>  One of the items mentioned was a possible change in U.S. copyright
>law, to cover "industrial design" items.  Basically, this would make
>it illegal to duplicate a piece of an object sold in the U.S. and sell
>the duplicate, if a copyright was held on that item.  The example he
>uses is a car body part; right now, if you have an accident, you can
>buy either the manufacturer's replacement part, or a number of
>third-party ones which are designed to fulfill the same purpose (i.e.
>fit in the same place, look the same).  Under the proposed changes,
>this would become illegal.

A couple weeks ago there was a mention of a great controvery in Britain
over legislation to ban "must-fit" auto parts (why the wierd name?), which
are aftermarket parts.

One could dig up the arguments made in Britain from newspapers, and the
records from Parliament, and apply them here.

Does anyone know more about the "must-fit" controversy?

It was mentioned during the discussion of outlawing disassembly.
-- 
Michael D. Crawford
Oddball Enterprises		Consulting for Apple Computer Inc.
606 Modesto Avenue		escher@apple.com
Santa Cruz, CA 95060		Applelink: escher@apple.com@INTERNET#
oddball!mike@ucscc.ucsc.edu	The opinions expressed here are solely my own.

		alias make '/bin/make & rn'