🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <bhayden.721140119@teal>, bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) 
writes:
> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Nov3.184022.22163@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, terry@cs.weber.edu (A 
> >Wizard of Earth C) writes:
> >> "Look and feel" is a direct result of an attempt to extend the protection
> >> granted in a copyright to effectively produce a "software patent", or at
> >> least the equivalent. 
> 
> Unfortunately, look and feel C/R is invariably much broader than patent 
> protection. Additionally, the C/R is never examined.
> 
> >"Look and Feel" did not originate with software copyright.  It originated 
in 
> >a case where Sid and Marty Kroft sued McDonald's for producing television 
> >commercials with the same "look and feel" as (but no literal copying of) 
the 
> >Kroft TV shows like "H.R. Puffenstuff".  It's not a result of an attempt 
to 
> >effectively produce a software patent.
> 
> I do not agree with your logic. Yes, the concept was not invented just
> for software. But that is where it is the most insidious. 

I'm not sure what you think my logic is.  The statement was made, 
incorrectly, that "'Look and feel is a direct result of an attempt to extend 
the protection granted in a copyright to effectively produce a 'software 
patent', or at least the equivalent."  This statement is wrong, because "look 
and feel", under the name "total concept and feel", originated in a context 
totally unrelated to software.  I pointed that out.  My logic is limited to 
that point.  

With which part do you disagree?

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.