Viewpoint: against user interface copyright.
VIEWPOINT AGAINST USER INTERFACE COPYRIGHTIn June 1990, Lotus won a copyright infringement suit against Paperback Software, a small company that implemented a spreadsheet which 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 of winning the suit, 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.
In another case, 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 dismissed.
Resentment of these lawsuits has led to boycotts by programmers and users who stop buying from the plaintiffs, stop developing software for their systems, or refuse job offers.
While this column primarily addresses 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 the user must learn in order 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 accelerate and reduce speed, a lever to signal turns, etc.
When the machine is a computer program, the interface includes 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 states that the purpose of copyright is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." Any hint of intention to enrich copyrigh holders to the detriment of the users of copyrighted works is conspicuously absent.
The reason for this absence was made explicit by the Supreme Court which stated in Fox Film vs. 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 benefits to the public are greater than the costs.
The spirit of individual freedom must 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 interfce was both standard practice and lawful. Under this system, today's plaintiffs made their decisions to develop their products. When actually faced with the choice they decided that they did, indeed, have "enough incentive."
Although 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 empty a bottle, more suction will not 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 will not help the small company very 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 strength to reach them before the small company can.
User interface copyright will not 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.
Moreover, 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 msot 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 cpyright. Readers want to read novels they have not yet read.
But diversity is not the goal of interface design. Computer users want consistency in interfaces because this promotes ease of use. Thus, by standardizing street signs and symbols on automobile dashboards, we have made it possible for any driver in the world to operate any car with virtually no 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.
Reason #4: Meaningful
Competition will Be Reduced
Under the regime of interface copyright, there will be no compatible competition for established products. A user will require retraining in order to switch to a different brand.
But users do not like to retrain, not even to reap the benefits of a significant improvement. For example, the Dvorak keyboard layout, invented several decades ago, enables a typist to type faster and more accurately than is possible with the standard "QWERTY" layout. Nonetheless, few people use it. Even new typists do not learn Dvorak, because they want to learn the layout used on most typewriters.
Alternative products that require such an effort by the consumer are not effective competition. The monopoly on the established interface will in practice yield a monopoly on the functionality accessed by it. This will cause higher prices and less technological advancement--a windfall for lucky businesses, but bad for the public at large.
Reason #5: Incompatibility
Does Not Go Away
If there had been a 50-year interface copyright for the steering wheel, it would have been in effect until a short time ago. During the span of the copyright, we would have developed cars steered with joysticks, with levers, with pedals. Each car user would have had to choose a brand of car to learn to drive, and it would not be easy to switch.
The expiration of the copyright would have freed manufacturers to switch to the best of the known interfaces. But if Ford cars were steered with wheels and General Motors were steered wit pedals, neither company could change interface without abandoning their old customers. It would take decades to converge on a single interface.
reason #6: Users Have
Invested More Money Than
Developers
The plaintiffs like to claim that user interfaces represent large investments on their part.
In fact, the effort spent designing the user interface of a computer program is usually small compared to the cost of developing the program itself. The people who make a large investment in the user interface are the users who train to use it. Users have spent much more time and money learning to use 1-2-3 than Lotus spent developing the entire program, let alone what Lotus spent to develop the program's interface per se.
Thus, if investment justifies ownership, it is the users who should be the owners. The users should be allowed to decide--through the marketplace--who may use it. According to Infoworld (mid January 1989), computer users in general expect user interface copyright to be harmful.
Reason #7: Discrimination
Against Software Sharing
User interface copyright discriminates against freely redistributable software, such as freeware, shareware and public domain software.
Although it may be possible to license an interface for a proprietary program, if the owner is willing, these licenses require payment, usually per copy. There is no way to collect this payment for a freely redistributable program. The result will be a growing body of interfaces that are barred to nonproprietary software.
Authors of these programs donate to the public the right to share them, and sometimes to study and change their workings. This is a public service, and one less common than innovation. It does not make sense to encourage innovation of one sort with means that bar donation of another sort.
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 other than to base it on the ideas you have seen 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 for preventing 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.
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: Interface
Copyright Inhibits Useful
Innovation
Due to the evolutionary nature of interface development, interface copyright will actually retard progress.
Fully fleshed-out interfaces do not 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 Xeros 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 Visicalx 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 upward 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 Do Not Want
Copyright
At the 1989 ACM Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, Professor Samuelson of Emory School of Law presented a "mock trial" witl 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 opinions 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 to 5, the average answer was 1.6. {See the May 1990 issue of the Communications of the ACM, for the full results.}
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 left alone.
Do You Really Want a User
Interface Copyright, Anyway?
For a business, "locking in" customers may be profitable for a time. But, as the vendors of proprietary operating systems have discovered, 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.
Conclusion
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.
What You Can Do. (Feel free to delete this section when sending a copy to a politician.)
* Join the League for Programming Freedom. The League is a grass-roots organization of programmers and users opposing software patents and interface copyrights. (The League is not opposed to copyright on individual programs.) Annual dues are $42 for employed professionals, $10.50 for students, and $21 for others. We appreciate activists, but members who cannot contribute their time are also welcome.
Phone the League at (617) 243-4091, send Internet mail toi [email protected], or write:
League for Programming Freedom 1 Kendall Square #143 P.O. Box 9171 Cambridge, MA 02139
*In the United States, write to your representatives and to these congressional subcommittees:
House Subcommitee on Intellectual Property 2137 Rayburn Bldg Washington, DC 20515
Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
* In Europe, the European Commission is proposing to institute interface copyright. Express your opposition by writing to:
Jean-Francois Verstrynge DG 3/D/4 Commission of the European Communities 200 Rue de la Loi 1049 Bruxelles BELGIUM
Also write to your own representative to the European Parliament.
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Author: | Stallman, Richard; Garfinkel, Simson |
|---|---|
| Publication: | Communications of the ACM |
| Date: | Nov 1, 1990 |
| Words: | 2704 |
| Previous Article: | ACM and the status of women and minorities in computing. |
| Next Article: | Windows, DOS and the Mac. |
| Topics: | |