#Copyrights
21 messages in this thread
Betty –
A few pointss.
1) I recall a coin-operated video game vendor sued another because the
defendant's games too closely resembled the look-and-feel of the plaintif's
game. I believe they won.
2) While an idea may not be put under copyright protection it can be
patented.
3) Hasn't Apple been suing several other manufacturers because their
windowing software used Apple, apparently really Xerox, ideas?
– Nelson …
(If software is outlawed, then only outlaws will have software.)
Nelson,
Digging back into my memory of patent/copyright law….
Ideas can not be copyrighted…expressions of those ideas can be.
Ideas can not be patented…implementations of those ideas can be.
If I say I've got an idea for a piece of software, but do nothing
more…it's not protected. If I express that idea…either as pseudocode
or as a series of drawings…that can be copyrighted.
If I say I've got an idea for a new framitz, but do nothing to
implement it…it's not protected. If I build my new framitz, I can then
patent it…presuming it's a new and unique methodology for "framitzing".
Now…the above is the way I remember things to be…I could be
wrong, and if I am…hopefully someone versed in copyright/patent law will
jump in and correct me (us).
Don
Don,
You understanding of copyright and patent parallel what I know about it. So
I don't think you're off on this. Chow, Cheryl P!
Don –
Absolutely right, I mis-spoke (wrote?). Ideas cannot be patented, but
their expressions in physical form can. However the line can be very thin.
Didn't the inventor of the MASER demonstrate in court he had the "idea" of
the LASER first; and lay claim to patent rights on certain LASER
technologies? I don't recall if he won, but do recall that the report was
seriously positive that he could.
I don't know anything about the "framitz" that started this thread. I
believe it was a complaint about some ones BBS author "stealing" look and
feel from another BBS author.
Besides a general feeling of inadequacy about writing commercial code on
my own; I think hassles like that would probably get me down.
– Nelson …
(Nothing sucks like success!)
Nelson,
Well…my memory says that a MASER and LASER both work on the same
principle…and that only the frequency of the emitted radiation is
different. One is at "light" frequencies while the other is at microwave
frequencies.
But it's been a LONG time since I've read anything about MASERs, so
I could easily be wrong.
In any event, if the above is true…then my guess is that his
claim would be valid.
Don
Chowdy Nelson,
1) You are correct their was a lawsuit. The court found that the second
game was identical in look and feel and therefore violated copyright since
it was to all intents and purposes an exact "copy."
2) Ideas cannot be patented. Gizmos and processes can be patented. Not
the ideas behind them.
3) Apple sued MicroSoft over the use of copyrighted material that was
included in an unauthorized version of their windows software. It was a
simple matter to prove that MicroSoft had access. Apple has reason to
believe that the code was passed on to the other manufacturers involved in
the suit. They aren't suing over look and feel, they are suing over use of
copyrighted code.
Another point to add. The Xerox suit against Apple for use of look and
feel. The judge threw out 6 of 7 of the complaints and is waiting on the
seventh, because if he decides in Apple's favor on it, because he may well
end up putting the whole windows-style look and feel operating system into
the public domain. Doing so could seriously jeapardize some of Apple's
copyright claims.
Nope, I'm not an expert in copyright law. I just follow this issue closely
because I'm a writer.
Chow, Cheryl P!
1) A coin op manufacturer sued a computer software developer because they
claimed that the defendant's karate game looked too much like their coin op
one. The defendant WON. This is (to my knowledge) the only court decision
regarding "look and feel", and the ruling was against the claim.
2) But has this idea been patented? Patents are the issue being discussed.
3) None of the Apple suits have been decided.
Craig
Craig,
I forget if it was a decision…or an out-of-court settlement, but
Apple did "win" over Digital Research when it sued GEM for "look and feel"
Don
That was out of court. DRI wasn't admitting they were wrong, they could
just not afford to go without GEM (there was an injunction) for the years
that it would take the courts to decide. They were basically forced into
giving up.
In out of court settlements, there is no win.
That's debatable…there's no legal win….but if the effect is the
same…does it really matter? As Craig pointed out to me…the Apple vs
DRI suit ended in an out of court settlement. DRI ended up changing
GEM…..that's what Apple wanted. So I would say, Apple "won".
Apple "won" a battle, but not in a way that ensures it will stay won, or
even that the winning meant anything but punitive happenings for the people
they were agressing. I meant win in the legal sense, such that shoudl
company B now try this, they would know beforehand that apple would drag
them to court, and a judge would, w/o delay, say, precendent… mumble
mumble, judgement for plaintiff.
In that sense…you're correct.
The difference is that an out-of-court settlement does not set a precedent
based upon a legal ruling. Aplle basically bullied DRI into changing some
things, about the same situation as might have happened by sending around
the boys with the baseball bats. You could call that a win, but it won
nothing. A win, to Apple, would have set a precedent so that they could
more successfully bully other companies.
Apple did not "win". Winning implies a judgement against the "losing"
side. DRI settled out of court with Apple and made no admission of wrong
doing.
As I told Ben…in or out of court settlement…it doesn't matter. Apple
wanted DRI to change GEM, DRI did change GEM. Apple got what they wanted,
DRI did something they didn't want to do. To me…that's a win, whether
there was any admission (or finding) of fault. Look at it this way. You
and Joe Blow have a traffic accident. Joe sues you for $500,000. You say
you weren't at fault, but your insurance company says it's negociated a
settlement with Joe for $150,000…and they're going to pay it because they
think they'd lose in court. Who won?
Your analogy is badly corrupted as a 3rd party made the decision. Apple
got what they wanted, yes, however, because the case did not go to trial,
no legal precedent was established.
I agree…no legal precedent was established…no question about
that.
Wrong, there was definitely precedent established there. It might not
have been Legal, but it did show that a well organised, well financed
operation can pratically close down one with less money, not to mention
that because they got an injunction, that effectively 'won' the case for
Apple.
Practically anyone can get a temporary injunction. The fact that DRI
decided to settle out of court rather than let the issue go to trial means
only that the issue (look and feel copyright — the main issue was the
trashcan being on the "desktop") is not resolved.
Definitely "out-of-court"…and I was sorry that DRI couldn't afford to
fight Apple then. I think they would have won…and a LOT of this
non-sense since could have been avoided.