Against User Interface Copyright
The League for Programming Freedom
Reason #8: Copyright Will Be a Tool For Extortion
The scope of interface copyright is so vague and potentially wide that it will be difficult for any programmer to be sure of being safe from lawsuits. Most programs need an interface, and there is usually no way to design an interface except based on the ideas you have seen used elsewhere. Only a great genius would be likely to envision a usable interface without a deep resemblance to current practice. It follows that most programming projects will risk an interface infringement suit.
The spirit of “millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute” is little honored in business today. Customers and investors often avoid companies that are targets of suits; an eventual victory may come years too late to prevent great loss or even bankruptcy. Therefore, when offered a choice between paying royalties and being sued, most businesses pay, even if they would probably win a suit.
Since this tendency is well known, companies often take advantage of it by filing or threatening suits they are unlikely to win. As long as any interface copyright exists, this form of extortion will broaden its effective scope.
Reason #9: Useful Innovation Is Inhibited
Due to the evolutionary nature of interface development, interface copyright will actually retard progress.
Fully fleshed-out interfaces don’t often arise as tours de force from the minds of isolated masters. They result from repeated implementations, by different groups, each learning from the results of previous attempts. For example, the Macintosh interface was based on ideas tried previously by Xerox and SRI, and before that by the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. The Xerox Star also drew on the interface ideas that came from SRI and SAIL. 1-2-3 adapted the interface ideas of Visicalc and other spreadsheets. dBase drew on a program developed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
This evolutionary process resembles the creation of folk art rather than the way symphonies, novels or films are made. The advances that we ought to encourage are most often small, localized changes to what someone else has done. If each interface has an owner, it will be difficult to implement such ideas. Even assuming the owner will license the interface that is to be improved, the inconvenience and expense would discourage all but the most determined.
Users often appreciate small, incremental changes that make programs easier or faster to use. This means changes that are upwards compatible, or affect only part of a well-known interface. Thus, on computer keyboards, we now have function keys, arrow keys, a delete key and a control key, which typewriters did not have. But the layout of the letters is unchanged.
However, such partial changes as this are not permitted by copyright
law. If any significant portion of the new interface is the same as a copyrighted interface, the new interface is illegal.
Reason #10: Interface Developers Don’t Want Interface Copyright
At the 1989 ACM Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, Professor Samuelson of the Emory School of Law presented a “mock trial” with legal arguments for and against user interface copyright, and then asked the attendees – researchers and developers of user interfaces – to fill out a survey of their opinion on the subject.
The respondents overwhelmingly opposed all aspects of user interface copyright, by as much as 4 to 1 for some aspects. When they were asked whether user interface copyright would harm or help the field, on a scale from 1 (harm) to 5 (help), the average answer was 1.6.2
The advocates of user interface copyright say that it would provide better security and income for user interface designers. However, the survey shows that these supposed beneficiaries would prefer to be let alone.
Do You Really Want a User Interface Copyright?
For a business, “locking in” customers may be profitable for a time. But, as the vendors of proprietary operating systems have found out, this generates resentment and eventually drives customers to try to escape. In the long run, this leads to failure.
Therefore, by permitting user interface copyright, society encourages
counterproductive thinking in its businesses. Not all businesses can resist this temptation; let us not tempt them.
Monopolies on user interfaces do not serve the users and do not “promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” User interfaces ought to be the common property of all, as they undisputedly were until a few years ago.
Cambridge, MA
1. The Ashton-Tate suit was dismissed in December 1990, but the idea of copyright on a language was not explicitly rejected; this ruling is being appealed.
2. See the May 1990 issue of the Communications of the ACM, for the full results.
© 1991, The League for Programming Freedom. Copying and redistribution are permitted without royalty; alteration is not permitted.
Go to: Against Software Patents
Home > Research Resources > Software Ownership & Intellectual Property Rights > Against User Interface Copyright
HOME |
IN THE NEWS | RESEARCH RESOURCES
TEACHING
RESOURCES | STUDENT RESOURCES | LINKS
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