On 06-Mar-99 Alan Pinstein wrote:
> Sure, it's a fine distinction, but if it weren't for the unethical means,
> the other authors wouldn't be affected. And that's what's not fair. It is
> using the unfair means that is most damaging; the original author set up a
> BARRIER TO ENTRY by being innovative with UI and functionality, and if
> someone rips that off then they are stealing the original author's
> intellectual property.
Just an observation.. this started off by claiming 'look and feel' copyright
infringement. At this point in time that issue is still bouncing around in
the court system on a case-by-case basis -- although I find that this is more
of an 80's phenomenon especially in light of the recent (1995) Lotus 123 look
and feel case overturn.
In the decision yesterday, the three judges of the appeal court wrote: "We
hold that the Lotus menu command hierarchy is an uncopyrightable 'method of
operation'". This is an important win for Borland, which was facing
potential damages of up to $100 million.
Greg Aharonian
Internet Patent News Service
We can't be expected to give all of our programming freedom away simply
because a program looks and feels similar to another. Which BTW the
situations in question (in our copyright?? thread) are "deliberate" copycat
programs, but the intent doesn't really matter when it comes to law
enforcement. So are we all supposed to make our programs look completely
different from one another just so we never get our asses sued off?
The most prominent case today is probably the Tetris copyright. The premise
is that 10 years ago a very original game was marketed for DOS. In that time
a bunch of shareware and freeware authors made up their own games based on
the same concept and have made them available to many more platforms than the
original company. So on the one hand you have Tetris corp who really should
have patented it or something, but they have several legitimate claims to
Tetris; trademark, copyright, look & feel, etc. And on the other you have 10
years of time passed and a bunch of tetris-like games on a bunch of different
platforms.. who are all being sued for copyright infringement. I have no
idea how this one will turn out, being that it is a game rather than a
utility.
> I agree with this completely. If someone makes a free application that has
> the same functinality (say a calculator or something) and it is completely
> unique; as unique as I tried to make my calculator when I started out, then
> that IS a good thing. A freeware author (or even another commercial author)
> has raised the bar, which means that everyone must improve and innovate.
> This is the natural way of market forces.
>
> I don't think that it matters if it's freeare or shareware or whatever, so
> keep that in mind. I'm not against freeware, just cheap, illegal, unethical
> imitation.
What's the deal here.. Is that your idea of how the world is supposed to
work, where all calculators are required to be "completely unique"? I could
buy that argument for games, but surely a utility program has to subscribe to
best of breed whereby people use what they like best.. and if they like what
you've done then I would expect the competition to make knock-offs. Coke,
Pepsi or RC cola anyone?
And how would this apply to real world programs? Things like tax, insurance
and health care forms can't be "completely unique" in every implementation
because the market would not accept it -- and it is quite *ludicrous* to be
worrying about infringing on the "look" or "feel" of another complex
application upon which so much depends.
I completely understand your reason why you don't like copycat freeware
programs. But you just can't have your position of "cheap and unethical
imitation" be grounds for calling something "illegal", unless you want people
to be sued for having little or no taste when it comes to programming. Geez,
so a guy likes a program and makes (100% his code of course) a clone for
free.. and suddenly his ethics are compared to Micro$oft!
/* Chris Faherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, finger for PGP */
