Computing Reviews
Today's Issue Hot Topics Search Browse Recommended My Account Log In
Review Help
Search
User interface: legal protection
Buchalska J.  MIDI 2014 (Proceedings of the 2014 Mulitmedia, Interaction, Design and Innovation International Conference, Warsaw, Poland, Jun 24-25, 2014)1-9.2014.Type:Proceedings
Date Reviewed: Mar 3 2015

Hello, European Union (EU) 21st century software-driven-everything activists. EU copyright protection included an interface’s look and feel (video games, robotic surgery controllers, smartphones, global positioning system (GPS) navigators, and so on), because interfaces were forms of expression, while EU industrial property (patent) protection was/but-was-not for new, useful, and not obvious aspects of interface functionality, because those have innovations. Now, the European Court of Justice (December 22, 2010, C-393/09) has decided that interfaces are not a form of expression within the scope of copyright protection. Confused? Actual software code lines (performing the interface) are still protected, just like literary works, but the interfaces enabled are not copyright protected because that’s functional (and thus subject matter for industrial patenting).

Did your genius programmer design interfaces intuitive to average five-year-olds, or did you spend millions on industrial designers and psychophysics/ergonomic experts to compare learning curves and functional efficiencies of various interfaces? Perhaps, because patent protection (especially for software in Europe) was/is a virtual legal impossibility, you relied on copyright protection for your masterwork user interface. Announcement: Tough luck, EU people; it ain’t protected no more! So if your interface design was pure customer magic, then all the “new” look-alike copycat interfaces get that magic for free.

Neurologically speaking, the EU intellectual property organism brain seems lobotomized--no more coordination between the left-brain (creative) copyright side and the right-brain (functional) patent side. Now, to understand this pathological uncreative dysfunctional decision in much greater detail, and to find some viable proactive options, I suggest this paper. Read it and weep.

Reviewer:  Chaim Scheff Review #: CR143217 (1506-0532)
Bookmark and Share
  Featured Reviewer  
 
Copyrights (K.5.1 ... )
 
Would you recommend this review?
yes
no
Other reviews under "Copyrights": Date
How to copyright software
Salone M., Nolo Press, Berkeley, CA, 1984. Type: Book (9789780917316791)
May 1 1985
The bankruptcy code, the copyright act, and transactions in computer software
Hemnes T., Montgomery S. Computer/Law Journal 7(3): 327-381, 1987. Type: Article
May 1 1988
Legal protection of microcode and beyond: a discussion of the applicability of the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act and the copyright laws to microcode
Harris J. Computer/Law Journal VI(2): 187-244, 1985. Type: Article
Jul 1 1986
more...

E-Mail This Printer-Friendly
Send Your Comments
Contact Us
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.   Copyright 1999-2024 ThinkLoud®
Terms of Use
| Privacy Policy