Re: About Computer Software and Patents

>What is the argument that the software industry is different
>from all other industries for patent purposes?

The unique thing about software is that it simultaneously has the characteristics of a literary work, which would make it copyrightable, and of a useful object, which would make it patentable. There's also the mental process issue, that until the advent of software patents you couldn't get a patent on something you could in principle do in your head. There's a separate issue that the patent office doesn't have a clue about software prior art, but that's subordinate to the primary question.

>[re look and feel] The "standard interface" idea
>sometimes put forward to justify denying copyright (Lotus 1-2-3
>has become a standard; we have to allow copying for the benefit
>of users) is bogus: if the public puts a value on having the
>same interface in competiting products, the competitor can
>license the use of the interface from its copyright owner.

I've read Judge Keeton's decision in Lotus v. Paperback. He didn't understand the issues at all. The case hinged on the slash commands in 1-2-3. Paperback also copied the formula language, of course, but for some reason that wasn't an issue. Everyone agreed that the general L-shaped border around a spreadsheet was so general as not to be protectable, and the screen formats were different enough that they weren't an issue, either.

He reasoned that since the original selection of slash commands was arbitrary, it was a creative rather than functional choice and therefore was protected by copyright. Unfortunately, the slash commands define the macro language -- if you don't have the same slash commands, you can't run spreadsheets that contain macros, a functional problem that should be outside of the realm of copyright. He rejected the functional argument, saying that it would be OK to have a conversion program that translated from the Lotus slash commands to a different non-infringing set. It seems to me that if you can do that, how about running the conversion program immediately after each character that the user types?

Look-and-feel is not a suitable area for copyright, because it's basically a functional issue. All standard interfaces were once arbitrary, but aren't any more. Protecting the input langage to a program is like protecting the arrangement of levers and pedals in an automobile.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl[_at_]iecc.com, jlevine[_at_]delphi.com, 1037498[_at_]mcimail.com Received on Wed Feb 23 1994 - 00:46:09 GMT