Talk:Look and feel
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Artistic Look & Feel
I am speaking instinctively here (ie: I will need to research and return with facts at a later date) but as I recall the application of the term "look & feel" is far more extensive than described in this article. Among other items that come to mind is the application of this term towards copyrights for works of art. I recall 2 examples as follows:
- 1. Greeting cards often use look & feel to protect against plagarism of their creative designs.
- 2. "American Gothic", a painting of a farmer with a pitchfork and his wife standing in front of a barn. I have heard (unconfirmed) that the copyright holder for that painting aggressively pursues their rights against any image that fits that simplistic description.
Again, I am speaking from memory at this point and will attempt to validate and update this commentary as time allows. If anyone else has relevant facts for or against these comments they would be appreciated.
"Look & Feel" is a Public Disservice and is Contrary to Our Founding Principles
Only the Underlying Software & Firmware Should be Copyrightable
The original document for the founding the U.S. Patent Office states:
- ...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries...
Note the important limitation on time. Patents are granted for 20 years while Copyrights are enforced for the life of the copyright holder plus 75 years. Copyrights were intended to protect authors of the printed page while patents were intended to improve the "Useful Arts" (technology) by allowing inventors a monopoly to ensure the that the technology was brought to market, then terminating that monopoly status in order to ensure that the technology was improved. If Henry Ford was granted a Copyright to automobiles' "look & feel!" we would all be driving the same black car with a wimpy engine and double-clutching noisy gears. This would be so, I believe, because Ford with a "Copyright Monopoly" would have conclude that he has a good product which the public needs, and he would have no economic incentive pressuring him to produce better automobiles. Thanks to U.S. patent examiners, and court officials with too little knowledge of math, science and engineering, this is exactly where the world wide information industry is today, plagued by annoying operating systems and "buggy" office suites. Ford may have allowed us to select more colors by now.
Once an image is controlled by software and can change dynamically, it no longer comes under the purview of the copyright. It is now technology and only patentable. Eventually, others will devise more efficient and robust underlying code. But, "Look & Feel" prevents the rest of us from having the opportunity to enjoy such improvements. If "Look & Feel" had been struck down or at least limited to patents rather than as a copyright, today we would have (indeed we should have) at lease two vendors of operating systems that would "mix & match" with two suppliers of office suites, all working on "PC-Style" computers using AMD or Intel processors. And the public would be served with faster, more stable and less expensive choices than MS-Windows or OS-X. Just imagine if companies had been developing PC operating systems in assembly code over the past 20 years!
And if you say, "Hey what about Linux? Its an OS that runs on PS's and will run PC software under WINE"! Then you still don't get it. Linux is great, but running PC software on Linux with WINE is just a kluge adding more layers of complexity and "buggyness". One should be able to buy OS's from Microsoft that will run "Windows Office" or "Brown Bag Office", as well as buy a "Brown Bag OS" and run "Brown Bag Office" or "Windows Office". The status quo insures corporate profitability at the expense of innovation. This is both a bad deal for world-wide people, and a bad deal for America.
- Wikipedia isn't really a debate forum; this talk page is just for discussing how the article should be improved. It's fine to include opinions in the article if they are notable and attributed to third party sources. -- Beland (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Look and feel
There was a "see also" link to buzzwords which I removed. I assume this was there to indicate that this phrase is a buzzword, but this is not mentioned in the article. Feel free to add this article to list of buzzwords with a reference, or add a cited mention in the article. -- Beland (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)