On Dec 29, 1993 at 07:57, Rod Speed of 3:711/934 wrote:

 DB>> "...computer programs, as well as manuals and other
written materials,
 DB>> are the proper subject matter of the category of literary works..."
 DB>> - Knight and Fitzsimons
 RS>
 RS> You are mixing up two different issues here, those are the non software
 RS> provisions.

The point I was making is "computer programs ... are the proper
subject matter of the category of literary works".  Though, this is
now a couple of years old so it wouldn't surprise me that the situation has
changed somewhat.

 RS> And anyway, that doesnt say that software copyright is identical to that
 RS> of literary works, the original point.

Okay, so not "identical" - but (then at least), software *was* a
literary work for the purporses of copyright, which is what I was trying to
say.

 RS> Well, there is specific legislation covering software now, the
 RS> commonwealth bookshop aught to be able to tell you what specific acts 
 RS> etc.

So it's not in Copyright Act (Cth) 1968 amendments?

 RS> The point tho is that the 'look and feel' stuff is case law

Now, but initially they did have to fight it all on traditional grounds
(Borderbund vs. Unison, for example).

 RS> Thats one fundamental of the whole legal system, that there are specific
 RS> provisions in individual acts, and there are also precedents set by case
 RS> law as well.

No need to explain fundamental legal principles to me, Rod.  ;-)

 RS> You couldnt do that with say an artists picture, claim that one artist
 RS> owns a particular style of representation of a dog.

Oh, I'm sure some American would have tried by now.. .  .


    - dave
    david{at}harpo.nepean.uws.edu.au

---