decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Interesting question | 478 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Direct utility distinguishes the 123 interface from "Lock out aftermarket" connectors...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 12:16 AM EDT
That is, in the 123 case, there was an identified, tangible utility...

I also think that a british-style non-discriminatory licensing requirement would
have significant utility with those "lock out the aftermarket"
connectors.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Interesting question
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 14 2012 @ 06:28 PM EDT
Regarding interfaces, there is a reasonable argument that
allowing IP on interface design does more harm than good.

Absolutely. What there is not, and never can be, is any reasonable,
slightly-silly, very-silly, or anything-less-than-stark-bonkers-insane argument
that allowing IP on interface design does any good whatsoever.

The social "good" of allowing IP on something is whatever value there
is in making it more likely to be widely disseminated. (There can be no possible
economic good: the income from IP on interfaces is not just the dollar cost to
users, but the inconvenience penalties of switching interfaces between products:
that's why IBM, Microsoft, etc., publish standard interfaces and strongly
encourage developers to use them.) BUT the only value of an interface to its
owner is ... to get people to use it: and to accomplish that, it has to be
published.

IBM was never motivated to keep, say, the Fortran language specifications
secret: quite the reverse--even though publishing the specifications made it
possible for competitors to implement it. AND many customers, MOST wisely,
refused to use the language UNTIL other alternative implementations were
available. Yes, an interface is more marketable TO ITS ORIGINAL DESIGNER,
precisely BECAUSE another implementation appears.

Anyone who's trying to lock up an interface, is not thinking economically,
they're thinking sociopathically--like the thug who causes thousands of dollars
damage to a car, just to steal the CD player which is worth a few tens of
dollars when fenced. And they should feel the long arm of the law just like the
thug.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )