Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9899 misc.int-property:773 comp.unix.bsd:7715 Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!mcgregor From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) Subject: Re: Interface monopolies Message-ID: <1992Nov12.061943.28513@netcom.com> Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) References: <id.D9PU._Z1@ferranti.com> <JgqTTB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:19:43 GMT Lines: 25 In article <JgqTTB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes: >Design patents exist so that the utility of a form or formalism can be >owned and defended. Much that is copyrighted should be patented instead. >The "style" aspect of an interface isn't patentable but its utility is. Pressman distinguishes Design patents from Utility patents by claiming that Design Patents cover only the appearance and NON-Utility aspects of a product. Utility can be covered only by a utility patent according to his book. Can you give some pointers to source material showing that design patents really do cover the utility of a form? Thanks. -- Scott L. McGregor mcgregor@netcom.com President tel: 408-985-1824 Prescient Software, Inc. fax: 408-985-1936 3494 Yuba Avenue San Jose, CA 95117-2967