Since that hasn't anything to do with whether or not a patent should be
granted we don't need to confuse the situation by discussing it.
I would
disagree with your description of an interface. I'm more inclined to think of a
user interface as an artistic rendering rather then as an invention. The
creative parts of it anyway.
significantly easier to use and
learn
than anything that preceded it
And based on that sentiment,
I'd say it was both highly functional and highly intuitive.
Highly
functional - at least dictated by in some cases - has recently been ruled not to
be protectable by copyright.
Highly intuitive - I think I'd suggest
something that is highly intuitive should also not be protectable. The reason
being that I tend to find something is highly intuitive when it reflects the
bulk of my experience - in effect, I can "do what I'm used to naturally without
having to learn". Logically, since it already reflects something in high enough
use that one is highly used to it already, one can reason it only applies common
principles that already exist.
I've already covered why I don't believe
software should be protectable by patents. So I won't rehash that. Now I've
covered areas where I believe software shouldn't be covered by copyright (if it
is, IANAL and all that).
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
