NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/comp/sys/mac/apps/13324

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-14 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!hal.com!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!ryn.mro4.dec.com!rdg.dec.com!decvax.dec.com!enigami.mv.com!enigami.mv.com!cory
From: [e-mail] (Cory Kempf)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: Look & Feel
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:36:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: EnigamI, Inc., Nashua, NH
Lines: 71
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <[e-mail]> (comp.sys.mac.apps), [e-mail] (J. S. Greenfield) writes:

>I have no doubt that this is true.  Nonetheless, it is totally inappropriate
>to grant copyrights for user interfaces.
>
>Patents, on the other hand, may or may not be appropriate.  There was an
>interesting article on this in an old issue of CACM.  (I don't have the
>reference offhand, but if people ask, I will get it.)

I would be interested in the reference.  At any rate, it is *MUCH*
easier to get a copyright than a patent.  Much cheaper too.

Personally, I don't think that either are the 'correct' solution.
Consider: Major new versions of software products usually come out about
once a year.  Over the past ten years or so, I have seen most products
undergo serious changes to the user interface.  Some basic things
stay constant, but a lot changes.  The 75-100 years of a copyright
is effectively a perminant thing.  By the same token the 15(???) years
of a patent is longer than the life of all of the existing microcomputers,
and effectively about 5 generations.

Something that gave protection for 3-5 years should be sufficient
in my oppinion.  The company / people doing the development have made
their money off of the product in that time, and have probably developed
several new features, etc.

The problem with this is that if 3-5 years gets institutionalized,
what happens when the computer industry slows down to a reasonable
rate of progress (I assume that it will, sooner or later), similar
to that of other technologies?  At that point, 15 years may make
sense.

What is needed is a new mechanism of protection, that specifically
includes the interface, but is designed for high-tech endeavors.
It should not take longer than the product life cyccle to acquire
the protection, and the protection should last long enough to allow
the inventor to make a major profit off of it, but not so long as
to stifle inovation (c.f. software patents).

At present, we have two mechanisms: Copyright & Patents.  Copyright
costs are measured usually under $100.  Patent costs are usually over
$1000.  Copyright takes less than 1 year, patents usually take more than
1 year.

[>> == me]

>>But hey, it is not skin off of my nose.  If people don't want to pay
>>for new / good user interfaces, if I can't find a job as a user interface
>>designer, I can still find work as a software engineer.  I can use a cryptic
>>command line interface... can your mother?
>
>But this *hasn't* happened, even in the absence of both patents and copyrights
>for user interfaces (which is a very new, and according to my crystal-ball,
>probably short-lived idea).

Actually, user interfaces are copyrigtable under current law.  Sortof.
It is actually a very grey area.  But it seems to work.  And the occasional
suite against the clone makers generally keeps the UI cloning to a
minimum.



-------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Kempf                    EnigamI, Inc.
[e-mail]           ...!decvax!enigami!cory
Annon:    [e-mail]

"F' cryin' out loud, it's *your* life; shouldn't you at least examine
your lifestyle values to see if they are really what *you* want."
                                        --Keith Lim