On 04-Mar-99 Alan Pinstein wrote:
> I don't make up the rules, I am just commenting on what I have learned
> about them. And the fact is the UI, look and feel, and pictures/logos/icons
> ARE copyrightable. If you make a freeware app that looks exactly the same
> as someone else's, that is copyright infringement. This isn't my opinion,
> it's the law. Ask a lawyer if you don't beleive me. I just asked mine 30
> minutes ago...
I don't know any lawyers, sorry.. but I'm not really sorry :) I did however
use the next best thing:
http://www.computerlaw.com/lookfeel.html
Not quite so squeaky clean. It appears that infringement has been decided in
many different ways, mostly using "tests".. and when the tests involve screen
displays the court may decide which parts are protectable and unprotectable
"expression". The court rulings have basically been all over the map;
sometimes they require a separate copyright registration for static display
screen litigation, and sometimes they accept a look and feel to an
application even if the screens are not identical.
OTOH there have been strict rulings to my surprise which have taken a
competitive approach at determining which particular UI elements are
protectable. Thus comparisons to "gear shift patterns" in cars, and element
layouts that may be partially dictated by the desires of a market can also
influence what is protectable.
> If you make a freeware app that looks exactly the same as someone else's,
> that is copyright infringement. This isn't my opinion, it's the law.
It is *potential* copyright infringement. It isn't open and shut as if you
copied someone's CD or something. Look at those court rulings, some of them
are quite maddening.. indicating that by simply changing the order of menu
elements or altering capitalization you can vary the amount of protectable
"expression". And the entire screen could be ruled as unprotectable if the
court decides that it is important to "take advantage of an installed base of
users and user training" as in the Synercom Technology v. University
Computing case.
It still looks like a pissing contest between lawyers though.
> If a freeware author infringes on another's copyright, then it DOES
> materially affect the original author. He is losing sales because someone
> has used illegal means to create an alternative to his software that is
> free. That affects the original author's livelihood. How can you disagree
> with that?!
I didn't disagree with your premise, I think that is a valid point. But to
be frank I am not very willing to attach any emotions to that situation,
since it involves a cutthroat ideology of capitalism; which BTW I fully
support in practice, just not in spirit :) Perhaps I am just enamored with
the free software movement. I couldn't ask for more toys, and all totally
free! To me these guys are heroes, not thieves. But I do take copyrights
seriously, after all that is the only protection a GNU GPL uses.
Still I think look and feel copyright infringement is very bogus, and I don't
feel that it is a crime until a court decides it is on a case-by-case basis.
In contradicts itself in ways that make it trivial to loophole! For example,
the more ways that a screen can be designed and still perform the same
"functionality" actually /increases/ the protectability of a copyright and
vice versa. Such that when you find that perfect layout that nobody else had
the talent to dream up, that basically makes in unprotectable because a
competitor couldn't provide the same functionality without duping your screen
UI -- assuming we are just talking about static screens. That is what some
of the court rulings stated.
/* Chris Faherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, finger for PGP */
