If we look at these case based on previous theories discussed, I think what Whelan Associates, Inc. did was not wrong. You see we cannot conclusively say that Whelan is copying Jaslow's software when in fact it was not exactly the same program. It is unfair to Whelan if we immediately conclude that they plagerized Jaslow's work. Although based on the court findings, Whelan spent a lot of time studying Jaslow's program, the possibility that Whelan was only basing its program on Jaslow's cannot be eliminated. Maybe Whelan was studying Jaslow's because it wants to find out Jaslow's strengths and weaknesses, make a seperate program, and apply the necessary improvements. But the fact that Whelan was basing his program on other's work will immediately make Whelan guilty no matter what Whelan's true motivations are. As I was saying, we can only base our arguments on certain speculations because we did not experience the case first-hand.
Second Case: COMPUTER ASSOCIATES VS. ALTAI
I would definitely agree to the court's decision in this case because unlike the first case, we can clearly see that the direct possible perpetrator of copying Computer's program was no longer involved in the second version of Altai's program. Even if we take the first version of Altai's program, we cannot also say that Altai copied Computer's work because it was not the whole program that was copied. The programmer of Altai was only basing his work on his former employer's codes. So I think the court was right.
Based on this two cases, we can learn something that we, future programmers, ought to do. First, as much as possible, we should create ORIGINAL programs so as to avoid future conflicts in the future. Although we can base on other's work proper credits must be taken into account, or we must not copy other's work in totality. Second, if we get fired from a company, it is a proper protocol that what we did in the company we must leave it on the company. Although we made programs in the company who have fired us, it is not right to own and use the codes we made and use it on purposes beyond the company's area. Although you are already fired, you must be responsible enough in keeping the company's properties intact.
Third Case: APPLE VS. MICROSOFT
This case is a classic example betwen the clash of being "similar" and "identical".
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com :
i·den·ti·cal
adj.
1. Being the same: another orator who used the senator's identical words.
2. Exactly equal and alike.
3. Having such a close similarity or resemblance as to be essentially equal or interchangeable.
4. Biology Of or relating to a twin or twins developed from the same fertilized ovum and having the same genetic makeup and closely similar appearance; monozygotic.
sim·i·lar
So based on these definitions, we can clearly see that Micosoft did not commit any crime on mere basis ofsubstancial similarity. We could think that Microsoft could never come up with Windows if not for Apple's work but Microsoft was able to come up with its implementation which is original and is not based on existing ones. I agree with the court's decision.
Case Four: LOTUS LOOK AND FEEL
This is similar to the third case however this case is unique because it looks at certain specifics. In the third case, what Apple was fighting for was the GUI interface as a whole which of course failed. In this case, Lotus sued other companies for a specific item which is the menu structure or the arrangement of commands in the menu hierarchy. This cannot be argued because this menu can be seen and therefore cannot be denied. Although there is no code copying, the menu itself can be copyrighted. If I were the companies sued, they should have not copied exactly the items on the menu and instead come up with a similar menu by either renaming the items or excluding old items and adding new ones. This should have been done by the companies in order not to stir copyright controversy.
sim·i·lar
adj.
1. Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.
2. Mathematics Having corresponding angles equal and corresponding line segments proportional. Used of geometric figures: similar triangles.
So based on these definitions, we can clearly see that Micosoft did not commit any crime on mere basis ofsubstancial similarity. We could think that Microsoft could never come up with Windows if not for Apple's work but Microsoft was able to come up with its implementation which is original and is not based on existing ones. I agree with the court's decision.
Case Four: LOTUS LOOK AND FEEL
This is similar to the third case however this case is unique because it looks at certain specifics. In the third case, what Apple was fighting for was the GUI interface as a whole which of course failed. In this case, Lotus sued other companies for a specific item which is the menu structure or the arrangement of commands in the menu hierarchy. This cannot be argued because this menu can be seen and therefore cannot be denied. Although there is no code copying, the menu itself can be copyrighted. If I were the companies sued, they should have not copied exactly the items on the menu and instead come up with a similar menu by either renaming the items or excluding old items and adding new ones. This should have been done by the companies in order not to stir copyright controversy.
No comments:
Post a Comment