231 lines
11 KiB
C++
231 lines
11 KiB
C++
Newsgroups: comp.patents
|
|
From: patents@cs.su.oz.au (patents newsgroup moderator)
|
|
Subject: [ARTICLE] Shneiderman article on User Interfaces
|
|
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
|
|
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1992 19:33:58 GMT
|
|
Message-ID: <1992Dec1.020151.27700@cs.su.oz.au>
|
|
X-Article-Number: uklpf Msg # 200
|
|
X-Full-Sender-Address: @dlgm.daresbury.ac.uk:uklpf-request@daresbury.ac.uk
|
|
Lines: 223
|
|
|
|
[MOD- this article is from the UKLPF list and its author is rumoured
|
|
to be the expert witness on Graphical User interfaces in the Apple v.
|
|
Microsoft case]
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Protecting rights in user interface designs
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Prepared for ACM SIGCHI Bulletin October 1990
|
|
special issue on copyright legal issues)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Shneiderman
|
|
Department of Computer Science
|
|
University of Maryland
|
|
College Park, MD 20742
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sacrificing individual rights in the hopes of benefitting the public
|
|
good is a tempting but often misguided pursuit. I believe that
|
|
protecting individual rights (civil, voting, privacy, intellectual
|
|
property, etc.) is usually the best way to benefit and advance
|
|
the public good.
|
|
|
|
The current policy debate rages over the merits of offering
|
|
intellectual property protection to user interface designs. While
|
|
most commentators agree that copyright is appropriate for books,
|
|
songs, or artwork, some are reluctant to offer such protection for
|
|
user interfaces. These critics argue strenuously that intellectual
|
|
protection for user interfaces is "monopolistic" and that it would
|
|
have a destructive effect on the public good by limiting dissemination of
|
|
of useful innovations and inhibiting standardization. These critics claim that
|
|
the traditional individual and corporate rights to creative works should
|
|
be denied to user interface designers.
|
|
|
|
This position deserves some respect on its merits and because it is
|
|
quite widely held, but I strongly disagree. I am now ready to speak
|
|
out in favor of protecting individual rights as the more effective
|
|
and durable path to increasing the public good. My insight to these
|
|
issues has been enriched by participation as an expert witness for
|
|
the plaintiff in a major case now before the courts. I had initially
|
|
rejected invitations to participate by lawyers from both sides of the
|
|
case. Then during 1989, I more clearly realized the importance of
|
|
fighting for user interface designers as creative people who should
|
|
have the right to protect their creative work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background
|
|
|
|
Advocates of public domain software and shareware have benefitted the
|
|
computing community and I hope they will continue to do their work.
|
|
However, I am a strong believer in recognizing, rewarding,
|
|
respecting, and protecting individual creative activity in music,
|
|
film, poetry, writing, drawing, and user interface design.
|
|
Similarly, I support protection of functional devices (mechanical,
|
|
optical, electrical, etc.) by patent. Creative works are extensions
|
|
of ourselves and, like our children, deserve protection.
|
|
|
|
I believe that participants in this debate are all in favor of
|
|
increasing the public good, but the issue is whether individual
|
|
rights must be given up. Advocates of state-controlled economies,
|
|
communal utopias, restrictive zoning, and stop-and-search laws also
|
|
have argued that individual rights must be given up to increase the
|
|
public good, but often these arguments are short-sighted. Although
|
|
there are compelling examples on both sides of the issue, I think
|
|
that the benefit to the public good is usually maximized by allowing
|
|
individuals and corporations to protect their efforts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The case for protection
|
|
|
|
If individuals or corporations have invested time and
|
|
resources to produce a creative work, they should be able to secure
|
|
legal protection. This encourages innovation in at least two ways.
|
|
|
|
First, it offers the promise of honor and financial reward plus the
|
|
knowledge that they can influence who uses their work and how it is
|
|
used. If I write a book or design a user interface, I want to know
|
|
that my name will remain connected with the work, that I will be
|
|
asked permission for its use, that I can influence the context of its
|
|
proposed use, and that I can ask compensation if I so wish. I
|
|
regularly grant permission to use my works for free, but in other
|
|
situations I feel entitled to ask for payment. Financial
|
|
remuneration is often necessary to continue development, refine the
|
|
creative work, and adequately market a product.
|
|
|
|
Second, new user interface designers are compelled to push forward
|
|
the state of the art to gain similiar recognition and reward. If
|
|
user interfaces are unprotectable, then designers can ripoff the
|
|
currently fashionable design. This can lead to acceptance of the
|
|
lowest common denominator while marketeers pat themselves on the back
|
|
in the belief that they are promoting standardization. But this lazy
|
|
approach undermines the public good in that there is little pressure
|
|
or incentive to push the technology forward with innovative
|
|
solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Challenging the fear-mongers
|
|
|
|
Critics of protection paint a fearsome portrait of vicious
|
|
corporations and monopolistic individuals, but these scare tactics
|
|
seem exaggerated and naive. Individuals and companies that produce
|
|
creative works want to see their creations put to work and are
|
|
usually eager to negotiate licenses that permit access for a fee.
|
|
This is quite well accepted even in the gentle world of folk music,
|
|
but also in the competitive worlds of film making and book
|
|
publishing.
|
|
|
|
It does seem ironic that critics of protection publish their articles
|
|
in copyrighted journals. Also the professional societies (ACM, IEEE,
|
|
etc.) have moved vigorously to assert their copyright over written
|
|
materials and more recently for electronically published sources.
|
|
|
|
Allowing individuals or companies to assert ownership stimulates them
|
|
to disseminate their works, rather than keep them secret for as long
|
|
as possible. Without protection, innovators might be reluctant to
|
|
share their developments until products were distributed. With
|
|
protection an innovator can show a novel design and openly seek
|
|
partnerships.
|
|
|
|
Of course there will be extreme anecdotes told by both sides and
|
|
strong claims made in legal briefs, but overall I vote to pursue the
|
|
market-oriented policies that have more often than not been generative
|
|
of innovation. The user interface industry is growing up fast and like
|
|
the rock music superstars, we must also learn to live with the
|
|
lawyers and the legal system.
|
|
|
|
The lawyers, courts, and judges are not malicious or poorly informed,
|
|
but they do have a different set of rules, that have been established
|
|
over decades. The sooner we learn the rules, the more effective will
|
|
be our use of them to guide and promote innovation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are user interfaces different from other expressive works?
|
|
|
|
Copyrights are traditionally applied to creative works such as books,
|
|
poems, songs, or movies that have expressive aspects. Copyrights are
|
|
secured easily and last for the author's lifetime plus fifty years.
|
|
Infringement is established as "substantial similarity as judged by ordinary
|
|
observers". Patents are traditionally applied to inventions such as
|
|
staple guns, telescopes, motors, and radios that are functional.
|
|
Patents take several years to obtain and last 17 years, but
|
|
protection is strong. Neither protection applies to principles of
|
|
nature or generic ideas.
|
|
|
|
Even critics recognize that the user interfaces for video games, children's
|
|
entertainment software, and educational software are expressive and that
|
|
they are copyrightable. Designers of business computer applications such
|
|
as word processors, spreadsheets, database managers, etc. have become more
|
|
attentive to the expressive aspects of their user interfaces.
|
|
These interfaces now have eye-catching visual images, engaging animations,
|
|
colorful decorations, appealing sound effects, and playful aspects
|
|
(cute icons, 3-D, texture, shading, etc.) forming a harmonious ensemble.
|
|
|
|
While the line between videogames and business applications is not
|
|
clear and the line between expressive and functional is not always clear,
|
|
I believe that the expressive aspects of user interfaces should be
|
|
protectable by copyright or possibly some new form of intellectual
|
|
property protection.
|
|
|
|
Increasingly, I find it possible to separate the user interface from
|
|
the functional components of an application. We will have to rely on
|
|
the progress of our technology of specification and on legal
|
|
precedents to help chart a course. This is a complex issue and clean
|
|
solutions are not to be expected, but that does not discourage me
|
|
>from pursuing this path. I will stand up to protect individual rights.
|
|
|
|
In some cases it is clear that infringement has occurred (exact copying),
|
|
and in other cases the jury or judge will listen to the opposing parties
|
|
and then make their judgment, just as they do for songs or movie scripts.
|
|
Cooperation by licensing and mediation when there is conflict seem
|
|
preferable, but when an adverserial situation arises we have
|
|
traditionally relied on the courts for resolution and precedents.
|
|
I prefer the courtroom, with all its burdens and expenses, to the Wild
|
|
West environment of Ripoff City.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is a new form of intellectual protection needed?
|
|
|
|
Where there is an expressive component to a user interface, copyright
|
|
seems appropriate. Where the boundary between expression and function is
|
|
fuzzier we may need a new form of protection. I propose that researchers,
|
|
developers, lawyers, and legislators explore the need for new forms of
|
|
protection that would:
|
|
|
|
- permit rapid filing and dissemination of novel works
|
|
(more difficult than copyright,
|
|
but easier and quicker than patent)
|
|
- contain a clear statement of what is protected
|
|
- offer a limited time of protection (maybe 8-10 years)
|
|
- encourage licensing for reasonable royalties
|
|
- support a reasonable standardization process
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
|
|
|
Members of the user interface community should be aware that
|
|
important issues are at stake in these debates and court cases. It
|
|
will be helpful to be informed so that they can sort out
|
|
the rhetoric and participate intelligently and constructively.
|
|
|
|
A cooperative world in which partnership naturally leads to
|
|
respect for individual accomplishments is a great dream, but my
|
|
experience leads me to believe in the benefit of proper legal
|
|
protection. I recommend support for intellectual property protection
|
|
for user interfaces in the belief that individual rights are the
|
|
foundation for a more progressive society. At the same time, let's
|
|
honor user interface designers with our own form of Emmys, Oscars,
|
|
and Pulitzer Prizes.
|
|
-------------------------------end of article---------------------------
|
|
|
|
--------------- Sam Nelson, Computer Officer, Dept of Computing Science,
|
|
| (paste | University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland.
|
|
| complicated | E-mail: See From: line
|
|
| logo | Tel: +44 786 67443 (+44 786 467443 from 6.12.92)
|
|
| here) | G3 Fax: +44 786 64551 (+44 786 464551 from 6.12.92)
|
|
| | Member of the League for Programming Freedom
|
|
| | (lpf@uunet.uu.net for details)
|
|
--------------- $\Delta p\Delta {\bf r}\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\sim}\hbar$
|