Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9901 misc.int-property:774 comp.unix.bsd:7716 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!purdue!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news!nosc!ryptyde!jim Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Interface monopolies From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) Message-ID: <Hso7TB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> References: <1992Nov12.061943.28513@netcom.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 07:27:28 PST Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA Lines: 21 mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes: > In article <JgqTTB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) wr > > >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? I'll try to dig up some sources, but my point is more one of what should distinguish design patents from copyrights. There is, for example, a design patent covering handle angles for some tools. -- INTERNET: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) UUCP: ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115