What is a User Interface? – Against User Interface Copyright - The Research Center on Computing & Society

Text-only Version

The League for Programming Freedom

In June 1990, Lotus won a copyright infringement suit against Paperback Software, a small company that implemented a spreadsheet that obeys the same keystroke commands used in Lotus 1-2-3. Paperback was not accused of copying code from 1-2-3 – only of supporting compatible user commands. Such imitation was common practice until unexpected court decisions in recent years extended the scope of copyright law.

Within a week, Lotus went on to sue Borland over Quattro, a spreadsheet whose usual interface has only a few similarities to 1-2-3. Lotus claims that these similarities in keystroke sequences and/or the ability to customize the interface to emulate 1-2-3 are enough to infringe.

More ominously, Apple Computer has sued Microsoft and Hewlett Packard for implementing a window system whose displays partially resemble those of the Macintosh system. Subsequently Xerox sued Apple for implementing the Macintosh system, which derives some general concepts from the earlier Xerox Star system. These suits try to broaden the Lotus decision and establish copyright on a large class of user interfaces. The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because of a technicality; but if their planned appeal succeeds, a monopoly of unprecedented scope could still result.

And Ashton-Tate has sued Fox Software for implementing a database program that accepts the same programming language used in dBase. This is a radical demand, but in the current judicial climate, the threat cannot be neglected.1 In the same vein, Adobe claims that the Postscript language is copyrighted, though they are not suing those who reject this claim. If a language could be copyrighted, the result would be devastating for those who have written programs in the language.

While this paper addresses primarily the issue of copyright on specific user interfaces, most of the arguments apply with added force to any broader monopoly.

What Is a User Interface?

A user interface is what you have to learn to operate a machine. The user interface of a typewriter is the layout of the keys. The user interface of a car includes a steering wheel for turning, pedals to speed up and slow down, a lever to signal turns, etc.

When the machine is a computer program, the interface includes that of the computer – its keyboard, screen and mouse – plus those aspects specific to the program. These typically include the commands, menus, programming languages, and the way data is presented on the screen.

A copyright on a user interface means a government-imposed monopoly on its use. In the example of the typewriter, this would mean that each manufacturer would be forced to arrange the keys in a different layout.

The Purpose of Copyright

In the United States, the Constitution says that the purpose is to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” Conspicuously absent is any hint of intention to enrich copyright holders to the detriment of the users of copyrighted works.

The Supreme Court made the reason for this absence explicit, stating in Fox Film v Doyal that “The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.”

In other words, since copyright is a government-imposed monopoly, which interferes with the freedom of the public in a significant way, it is justified only if the benefit to the public exceeds the cost to the public.

The spirit of individual freedom must, if anything, incline us against monopoly. Following either the Supreme Court or the principle of freedom, the fundamental question is: what value does user interface copyright offer the public – and what price would we have to pay for it?

Reason #1: More Incentive Is Not Needed

The developers of the Star, the Macintosh system, 1-2-3 and dBase claim that without interface copyright there would be insufficient incentive to develop such products. This is disproved by their own actions.

Until 1986, user interface copyright was unheard of. The computer industry developed under a system where imitating a user interface was both standard practice and lawful. Under this system, today’s plaintiffs made their decisions to develop their products. When faced with the choice in actuality, they decided that they did, indeed, have “enough incentive.”

Even though competitors were free to imitate these interfaces, this did not prevent most of the original products from being successful and producing a large return on the investment. In fact, they were so successful that they became de facto standards. (The Xerox Star was a failure due to poor marketing even though nothing similar existed.)

Even if interface copyright would increase the existing incentive, additional improvements in user interfaces would not necessarily result. Once you suck a bottle dry, more suction won’t get more out of it. The existing incentive is so great that it may well suffice to motivate everyone who has an idea worth developing. Extra incentive, at the public’s expense, will only increase the price of these developments.

Reason #2: “Look and Feel” Will Not Protect Small Companies

The proponents of user interface copyright claim that it would protect small companies from being wiped out by large competitors. Yet look around: today’s interface copyright plaintiffs are large, established companies. User interface copyright is crushing when the interface is an effective standard. However, a small company is vulnerable when its product is little used, and its interface is little known. In this situation, user interface copyright won’t help the small company much.

Imagine a small company with 10,000 customers: a large company may believe there is a potential market of a million users, not reached by the small company, for a similar product. The large company will try to use its marketing might to reach them before the small company can.

User interface copyright won’t change this outcome. Forcing the large company to develop an incompatible interface will have little effect on the majority of potential customers – those who have not learned the other interface. They will buy from the large company anyway.

What’s more, interface copyright will work against the small company if the large company’s product becomes an effective standard. Then new customers will have an additional reason to prefer the large company. To survive, the small company will need to offer compatibility with this standard – but, due to user interface copyright, it will not be allowed to do so.

Instead of relying upon monopolistic measures, small companies are most successful when they rely on their own inherent advantages: agility, low overhead, and willingness to take risks.

Reason #3: Diversity in Interfaces Is Not Desirable

The Copyright system was designed to encourage diversity; its details work toward this end. Diversity is the primary goal when it comes to novels, songs, and the other traditional domains of copyright. Readers want to read novels they have not yet read.

But diversity is not the goal of interface design. Users of any kind of machinery want consistency in interfaces because this promotes ease of use. Thus, by standardizing symbols on automobile dashboards, we have made it possible for any licensed driver to operate any car without additional instruction. Incompatibility in interfaces is a price to be paid when worthwhile, not a benefit.

Significantly better interfaces may be hard to think of, but it is easy to invent interfaces which are merely different. Interface copyright will surely succeed in encouraging this sort of “interface development.” The result will be gratuitous incompatibility.

Back to the top

Go to: Reason #4: Meaningful Competition Is Reduced

Home > Research Resources > Software Ownership & Intellectual Property Rights > Against User Interface Copyright

The Research Center on Computing & Society
at Southern Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street • New Haven, CT 06515
Director: (203) 392-6790 • e-mail: webmaster@computerethics.org

© 2000 – 2007 – Research Center on Computing & Society