#HAM
13 messages in this thread
What he's saying is that any system that is colse enough that TapCIS can handle
it, may be violating some kind of "look and feel" rights that CIS legal types
may imagine they own.
I'm not much of a fan of "look and feel" copyrights, especially when prosecuted
by Apple (Xerox clone) and Lotus (VisiCalc clone).
../greg
Wait a minute, now I'm getting worried about my position. Will someone please
tell me, once and for all, whether CIS owns Tap/Zap? I thought they were
developed by just plain old hackers, like us… which means that CIS couldn't/
wouldn't care. IF they in fact _OWN_ the darn things, then I suppose it could
be an issue… but I darned sure thought CIS had nothing to do with them.
As David Letterman is fond of saying… "Sumbudy hep me, hep me pleze!"
Rick
Rick:
No CIS DOES NOT own or otherwise have anything to do with TAP/ZAP. This
whole thing started because of a comment that I replied to, that is unlike most
communications programs they don't work with any other service and can not be
made to without playing with the actual code. Since it is so specific, I made
the comment that CIS would be interested if Tap/Zap were being used on another
service (implying that the other service would have to function in a manner
that was nearly identical to the way that CIS works and THAT would interest
CIS). Sorry to everyone for the confusion. 73, bill
Aha… and I took your comment to mean that they would be interested to know
that someone had MODIFIED TAP/ZAP to make it work, instead of interested to
know that someone had duplicated the "look and feel" of CIS itself. <Nodding
head>
My most humble apologies, Bill. Because of the immediate subject of the
thread, I apparently misinterpreted your comments… in which case *I* was the
cause of the entire mess. Terribly sorry.
<If anyone had any doubts that I make mistakes… 8) >
Rick
Rick:
No problem. I was not thinking in terms of someone modifying Tap/Zap
and could not understand why you did see what I was talking about. Once it
occured to me that we were both making assumptions about the same thing but
taking the opposite position, well…… sure makes it obvious how arguments
could get started <grin>. 73, bill
<Nodding> Right you are. So often I see *heated* arguments break out over this
sort of misunderstanding. I've always endeavoured to understand the other
person's viewpoint before entering the discussion; I.E., "Did you mean x, which
is what it sounds like, or did you really mean y?" Problem was, in this case I
never even THOUGHT of y! 8)
<Whew> Close call, eh?
Rick
Rick:
Yea, I'd hate to think of how close we may have been to letting a
contract out on each other <grin>. 73, bill
The point that someone made, and that I was explaining is that TapCIS interacts
as a user rather rigidly with CompuSpend. The only way it could get along with
some other online service would be if that service had an identical look and
feel to CompuServe. He wasn't saying that CI$ would object to a TapCIS rip-off,
but that anything TapCIS could talk to comfortably probably looks too much like
CompuServe.
Ever since Lotus went back and bought the empty husk of the company they took
their "look and feel" from, everyone's been pushing "here's the standard, but
no-one's allowed to conform to it" idea.
../greg
Yes, that's been clarified for me now, and I do apologize to all concerned for
misinterpreting the comment.
Rick
In Lotus' case, though, they bought the company that produced Visicalc, so they
have every right to prosecute on look and feel.
Rodney Somerstein 73167,2165
Rodney,
That's making the fairly major assumption that any prosecution based upon
'look and feel' is 'right'.
Regards, Larry.
Sure. They bought the bankrupt hulk of the company after competing them into
the ground. *IF* look and feel is a morally defensible point, then the money
Lotus used to buy SA rightfully belonged to SA in the first place, without any
transfer of title.
It is possible that SA should have PATENTED spreadsheet programs. I think any
truly useful techniques should be in patent law, and that "design to spec" (as
the blue clone BIOSgraphers did) should be completely permissible.
You notice that apple only went after the financially troubled Digital Research
(Atari ST interface) and never even TRIED to go after the *MUCH* closer
Commodore Amiga interface? DR didn't have the money for a lengthy court
battle. Commodore would have welcomed a look and feel suit. "look and feel"
is often a technique for the heavies to lean on the little guy who bothers
their sales.
../greg
I want to see Apple go after Xerox for pre-Mac look-and-feel infringement.
🙂 🙂