Subject: Can a screen display be copy protected?

From: Don Hopkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 87 15:36:39 EST

MacWEEK, Sept 29, 1987
Page 9

Can a screen display be copy protected?

By Rusty Weston
MacWEEK Staff

WASHINGTON -- A panel of officials from the U.S. Copyright office must
weigh conflicting arguments by Lotus Development Corp., Apple and
trade lobbyists about whether software source-code protection includes
a program's "look and feel."

  At present, the Copyright Office does not act as an arbiter of
originality. A software developer submits the first and last 25 lines
of source code and is generally granted a copyright. The courts later
determine if the code was stolen.

  While legal minds differ about whether the copyrighted source code
is enough to protect a unique interface, such as the Home card in
Apple's HyperCard program, few would argue that screen displays should
go unprotected.

  That leaves a secondary, procedural question unresolved. The
copyright officials recently held hearings to determine if the
copyright rules should be changed to include separate registration of
screen displays. Public comment on the matter closes Oct. 9, and the
officials are expected to rule on the policy issues before the end of
this year.

  Apple seeks separate registration of screen displays and program
source code. Lotus said it believed that is unnecessary, that
authorship includes both facets of the program. The Computer and
Business Equipment Manufacturing Association (CBEMA), a trade group
that includes Apple and IBM, said that an author should choose whether
the code and display are registered separately or together.

  Ideas such as hypertext databases aren't protected by copyrights,
but the text and artwork that make a hypertext database unique can be
registered.

  For its part, the Copyright Office, part of the Library of Congress,
doesn't want to drown in a morass of paperwork and screen dumps.

  "The intellectual property on any one screen isn't the issue," said
Greg Jarboe, Lotus' director of corporate communications. "It's how
the screens work together to make the application run. We think
software should be treated as a single work extending to everything
like a movie -- not just the dialogue."

  But Apple contends the user interface of its software gives it a
proprietary edge that deserves separate protection. Larry Teslet,
Apple's vice president of advance technology, visually demonstrated to
the panel in a Sept. 9 hearing how three different source codes could
be used to create an identical-looking on-screen object. In other
words, the way software looks isn't the sum of its parts.

  "We were delighted to hear Apple's main point that a lot of work and
creative thought goes into preparing what the user sees," Jarboe said.
"That's consistent with what we've been saying all along. Although we
disagree about a process issue, that's small potatoes."

  "You should be able to expect the screen displays were registered,"
said Ollie Smoot, acting CBEMA president. "If you want for evidentiary
purposes to deposit screen displays, you ought to be able to do it as
an option."

  Smoot said he doesn't think the copyright officials want to become
arbiters of originality. "I'm comfortable having the courts work it
out," he said. "Nobody has ever suggested a solution that will bring
instant clarity to the problem of authorship."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright Office
(202) 479-0700
Hearings were on Sep 9.
Comments may be sent in till Oct 9.

Address comments to:

	General Council
	Copyright Office
	Washington DC 20559

	Refer to the case involving computer screen displays.