🚀 go-pugleaf

    Date: 14 Oct 85 23:21:54 GMT
    From: ihnp4!ihlpm!kvk@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU  (Kevin)

    > In article <299@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes:
    > >I find it rather hard to believe that Apple would really have a case against
    > >DRI.
    > 
    > >True, in terms of it's external appearance, the GEM interface looks very
    > >much like the Mac interface.
    > 
    > These comments are mutually exclusive.... The case was specifically for the
    > visual copyright, so looking too much like the Mac was exactly what Apple
    > was (deservedly) upset about. If you spend 25 man years making someone, and
    > someone else borrows your design, does it in 5 many years, charges less,
    > and puts you out of business, wouldn't you be upset? Business needs to be
    > able to protect its R&D or R&D simply won't get done.
    > 
    > >But things like binding (install application)
    > >are much different.
    > 
    > This also has nothing to do with the visual copyright....
    Huh? Visual copyright?! I doubt such a thing exists - Imagine IBM copyrighting
    not only their ROM code but the look (the top is a plastic rectangle with these
    little metal pins sticking out... :-) ).
    My understanding of software copyright law is that someone can produce a program
    with a similar visual look, and as long as no code is pirated from the first
    program, no infringement exists. Otherwise Xerox should certainly sue Apple.
    Anyone know if DRI employed people from the Mac development team? This was my
    guess on why DRI gave in.
    These are my personal opinions, such as they are.
					    Kevin Kinder
					    ihnp4!ihlpm!kvk

And boy are they wrong!  Think back a few years to old Atari's vigorous
defense of its exclusive license to Pac Man.  It sued and, in those
cases where it actually came to trial, won on just this point.  In
essence, they argued that it wasn't the code which made Pac Man unique,
but that the look of the maze and the moving characters and the play
action were the game.  And the judge agreed that if at a distance of a
few feet one couldn't tell a Pac Man clone from the original then it was
indeed copyright infringement.