ftp.ee.pdx.edu/2014.02.ftp.ee.pdx.edu.tar/ftp.ee.pdx.edu/pub/lpf/info/lotus.info

Text File | 1992-11-03 | 11KB | 240 lines

   This is Info file lotus.info, produced by Makeinfo-1.43 from the input file lotus.texinfo.


                           Lotus Disinformation

                          Forewarned is Forearmed

                  (Revised and extended, 7 February 1991)

   Many of the statements by Lotus on the issue of interface copyright
are designed to mislead you in specific ways.  There are two basic
facts that Lotus does not want the public to understand:

   * That user interface copyright is a recent change in the legal
     system.

   * That imitating the commands of a program is different from
     copying the program itself, and that until recently these were
     regarded differently both by the legal system and by nearly all
     developers of software.

   To achieve this aim, Lotus spokespersons refuse to recognize the
distinction between copyright on user interfaces and copyright on
programs; they speak only of "copyright" without differentiation.
They use the term "copying" to describe both copying disks by machine
and implementing new, compatible programs.  This may lead unsuspecting
readers to regard these as equivalent, overlooking the difference.

   You can avoid propagating confusion by being alert and recognizing
these implicit messages when you interview Lotus representatives--and
explaining the flaws in the statements that you quote.

   Past misleading statements made by Lotus include:

   * "It [copyright] outlaws unfair competition by those who copy and
     sell the creations of others."

     The Lotus lawsuits are not about copying programs, but about
     imitating features that are popular with users.  Imitation was
     generally accepted custom--something that Lotus itself
     practiced--until the first surprise "look and feel" lawsuits
     began a few years ago.  It was considered both fair and lawful.

   * "Copyright has been fundamental to the development of the computer
     industry."

     This may be true of the kind of copyright that existed during the
     development of the industry, which was copyright on individual
     programs.  (The League for Programming Freedom does not oppose
     this traditional interpretation of copyright law.)  It cannot be
     true of copyright on user commands, which is a recent change.

   * "Judge Keeton's decision did not change the law."

     Not by itself; but it is the last of a series of "look and feel"
     decisions which have done so.  The first of these decisions, a
     few years ago, suprised the entire computer industry.  It is not
     meaningful to ask which single decision of the series was the one
     which changed the law.

   * Opponents of interface copyright are academics, "ignorant of the
     realities of the marketplace."

     The members of the League for Programming Freedom include
     successful entrepreneurs, executives and independent consultants,
     as well as numerous programmers employed in industry.

   * "The argument for weak protection is coming essentially from two
     places.  It is coming from large Japanese hardware companies...
     The other supporters of weak protection typically are some of the
     third world countries."

     Sun Microsystems, a $2 billion US company, advocates a narrow
     interpretation of copyright.  So do the members of the European
     Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS), a group of over sixty
     companies, user groups, and industry associations.  Its members
     include Bull S.A., Ing. Olivetti S.A., N.C.R. Corporation,
     Fujitsu, Unisys, Sun, and McDonnell Douglas Information Systems,
     and others.

   * Comparison of copyright on user interfaces with copyright on books
     and movies.

     Learning the interface of a program represents a substantial
     investment by each user.  Few users are willing to make this
     investment a second time to learn to use an alternative program,
     even a superior one.  This presents a barrier to entry for
     competitors that has no equivalent in the world of books and
     movies.

     Readers do not reject a new novel because it is different from
     the one book they have already learned to read--this would be
     absurd.  But computer users do reject new user interfaces for
     precisely that reason.

     Only a few afficianados learn program interfaces for their own
     sake.  Most users learn them in order to use a program.  By
     contrast, we read a book in order to see what it says; there's
     nothing more to it.  The contents of a book are analogous to
     particular information that a program or database might tell the
     user.  They are not analogous to the language in which data is
     conveyed to or from the user.

     There is one aspect of a book which is analogous to the user
     interface of a program.  This aspect consists of the language it
     is written in, plus the conventions of book layout (such as
     chapters, page numbers, indices, and tables of contents).  These
     things are what a user must know in order to use the book.  They
     are not copyrightable.

   * "No one has forced anyone to buy 1-2-3."

     People are often forced by circumstances to use a spreadsheet
     with the commands of 1-2-3.  For example, many large corporations
     adopt internal standards, to reduce problems of compatibility and
     training.  Beyond this, the fact that the interface of 1-2-3 is a
     standard means that other alternatives are of no practical use
     for most users.

     These are the same factors which effectively compel nearly all
     typists to use the de facto standard QWERTY keyboard.  To a
     person compelled in this way, quibbling about the meaning of
     "force" is little consolation.

   * "So far we have sued only those who have copied the entire
     interface."

     Users who have invested time in learning the interface of 1-2-3
     are entitled to the option of competing programs which do not
     require retraining.  This means, programs that can understand all
     the commands of 1-2-3.

     Meanwhile, Lotus refuses to rule out suits in the future against
     programs that are only partly compatible.  Copyright applies to
     works that are only partly similar; without a change in the law,
     interface copyright will prohibit imitating any substantial part
     of an interface.

   * User interface copyright will promote innovation.

     These copyrights will not promote meaningful innovations.
     Rather, they will promote pointless change comparable to
     scrambling the keys on the typewriter keyboard.  They will stifle
     true innovation based on incremental improvements, because
     lawsuits against creators of a program with any significant
     similarity to an earlier program will be an ever-present threat.

   * We should let the judicial system decide the issue, and not
     interfere.

     Just recently, a bill was passed to prohibit rental of software;
     software publishers including Lotus strongly supported this bill.
      Lotus tries, as do the rest of us, to change laws that seem
     incorrect.  They say that pushing for change in the law is wrong,
     hypocritically, when they want the laws to stay the same.

     The judicial system is subject to "garbage in, garbage out" like
     any other system.  If we find that the courts handle certain
     issues badly, we should not hesitate to ask our elected
     representatives to change the laws that judges follow.  This is
     the meaning of government of the people, by the people and for
     the people.

   * "New laws take a lot of time to draft, and no matter how well we
     draft the new law around software protection, it's going to take
     20 or 30 years of case law in that domain to make it work."

     The implication is that case law has already progressed five
     years of that required time, and we shouldn't sacrifice that by
     starting over with a new law.

     The fallacy here is the assumption that case law inevitably
     reaches a proper solution.  In fact, judges believe it is their
     job to follow the orders given in the existing laws--but in a
     rather mechanical fashion.  When this directs judges in the wrong
     direction, when the law as interpreted is fundamentally wrong, we
     cannot expect further judicial clarification to make it right.
     This law simply needs to be replaced.

   * "I don't want somebody ripping off something I worked hard to
     produce."

     The user interface of most programs, including 1-2-3, was far
     less work to develop than the program itself.  The main reason
     the interface of 1-2-3 is valuable is that so many users have
     invested time and money in it.  So much for "hard work".

   * "There is no innovation in copying software."

     "Copying software" means copying a program from one disk to
     another, and is deceptive when used to describe the act of
     implementing a compatible program.

     However, this statement makes an additional false implication:
     that developing a program with compatible features and commands
     involves no innovation.

     In fact, the user interface is just the surface of a program; the
     entire internal workings of a compatible imitation program must
     be developed from scratch.  The new program may be an improvement
     in speed, reliability, resources needed, makes and models of
     computer supported, terms of availability, or price.

     Typewriter manufacturers such as IBM and Olivetti have made
     typewriters that could be considered "clones" of earlier models,
     since they use the same keyboard layout.  However, it is not
     generally felt that designing their products involved no
     innovation, or that they should have been prohibited.

     Even to speak of "innovation" is misleading, because it sets up a
     double standard.  We do not require innovation in books or
     movies.  For example, most gothic romance novels contain little
     real innovation, but that does not mean they constitute
     plagiarism.

   * "... protection of innovation from being ripped off by others [is
     guaranteed] ... under the Constitution."

     This statement appeals to a common misconception about the
     purpose of copyright law.  The purpose, according to the
     Constitution and the Supreme Court, is not to guarantee special
     entitlements to authors.  Rather, it is to promote progress in
     science and the arts, for the sake of the public.

     Granting an overlarge monopoly to anyone works against progress
     and the free enterprise system.  Much as Lotus may be distressed
     when their work contributes to wider progress, there is no public
     interest in preventing this.

   * "As years go by, we will find that interface ...  will be harder
     and harder to separate from the content and value of software."

     The difference between a program's implementation and its
     interface is not a technological one.  It is the difference
     between how the program works and how users tell it what to do.
     This distinction is a matter of common sense; technological
     changes cannot erase it.  A similarity limited to how users tell
     a program what to do should not be covered by copyright.