ObjectDock Threads Being Deleted ~


Recommended Posts

Leqin I was going to type out a long and probably boring reply lol but instead I'll just give a pretty interesting link to the case if you want to read it.

http://www.richmond.edu/~jolt/v1i1/myers.html

just remember that the case was started in 1988 and wasn't resolved until 1992.

Also the main reason that Apple lost its foothold is because once more companies started making ibm compatible computers the price dropped by a ****load so people started switching away from apple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Timan

hell this thread suits me more then ur windows %$#^%

this thread suits you more than my windows what? 5 symbols hmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Wickedkitten

why don't you go find a thread thats better suited to your intellectual ability like the "what did you eat for breakfast" one over in general discussion.

people here are trying to carry on for once a non flaming discourse

ROFLMAO

Maybe, just to keep the natives happy, we ought to post replys full of tripos. even better do it all in lower case just to prove we had a proper ejucation, or include the odd string of random charecters that jh bajucwq sh no one can understand. Intelligent debate .... what in hells name is that ... sorry people do not come here for discourse ... only for other peoples illegal software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by leqin

ROFLMAO

Maybe, just to keep the natives happy, we ought to post replys full of tripos. even better do it all in lower case just to prove we had a proper ejucation, or include the odd string of random charecters that jh bajucwq sh no one can understand. Intelligent debate .... what in hells name is that ... sorry people do not come here for discourse ... only for other peoples illegal software.

wtf? all this time I've just been on here for the posts. If I wanted illegal software I'd be in IRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

legin said;

or Stardock

Ha! Haha!

Wickedkitten: You have made some excellent legal arguements. Although I still disagree with you on a few fine points, I would still like for you to address the underlying question to this entire subject of the Object Dock:

Is it right for people to distribute it?

BTW, if you want free data :p I would personally recommend Direct Connect. A hub based transfer system much more efficient than Hotline or IRC, DC has around half a Petabyte of data available at any given time, with @10 - 50 terabytes per hub. Easy search, auto resume, its what the internet should be about - free data!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by deadzombie

legin said;

Ha! Haha!

Wickedkitten: You have made some excellent legal arguements. Although I still disagree with you on a few fine points, I would still like for you to address the underlying question to this entire subject of the Object Dock:

Is it right for people to distribute it?

you mean I didn't address that issue somewhere in there? If Stardock actually managed to get a copyright for it then no it's not ok for people to distribute it, but if they didn't its public domain software and people can give it to their postman if they want and theres nothing Stardock can do about it from a legal standpoint.

If you want to ask if its morally right for people to distribute it then THAT would be a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Wickedkitten

If Stardock actually managed to get a copyright for it then no it's not ok for people to distribute it, but if they didn't its public domain software and people can give it to their postman if they want and theres nothing Stardock can do about it from a legal standpoint.

Creative works (and this includes programs, artwork, writings . . .) are automatically copyrighted to the authors. Immediately, on creation. Putting a program in the public domain requires a specific statement to that effect. Even open source/free software is not public domain. The original author retains all copyright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got my hands on objectdock and personally, I think it sucks. U can't change the name of the shortcuts on the dock so what good is it? Kill the project for all i care.

:) Just my 2cents :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by greenreaper

Creative works (and this includes programs, artwork, writings . . .) are automatically copyrighted to the authors. Immediately, on creation. Putting a program in the public domain requires a specific statement to that effect. Even open source/free software is not public domain. The original author retains all copyright.

sorry but when it comes to software just creating does NOT make it copyrighted. Public Domain software is software that the creator has released without applying for a copyright and is different from open source or freeware. Freeware is software where the author has estabished a copyright and is distributing it for free which is loads different from this case. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Timan

listen pippylongstocking

say if i make something and give it to a friend its not no damn public domain so shhhhh:evil:

....and aren't you the clever boy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Wickedkitten

sorry but when it comes to software just creating does NOT make it copyrighted. Public Domain software is software that the creator has released without applying for a copyright and is different from open source or freeware. Freeware is software where the author has estabished a copyright and is distributing it for free which is loads different from this case. Look it up if you don't believe me.

I don't, and that's because you're wrong. Take a look at http://www.library.carleton.edu/staff/mich.../acarticle.html

In particular:

If a software program was originally created by the author and not copied from someone else, and it is stable enough to be stored in any way, then it was automatically protected by copyright law since the moment of its creation. Protection under copyright extends for the life of the author and, except for rights six and seven above, 50 years beyond the author's death.

Just below that there's a bit about public domain. As of March 1 1988 no explicit copyright notation is required. Only if the software explicitly carries a notice of copyright abandonment does it become Public Domain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

honestly, i wish people would read the entire post before trying to refute it.

As per Gigalaw:

For software -- or any work -- to be eligible for copyright protection, it must be (1) original, (2) creative, and (3) fixed in a tangible medium of expression.
like I've said you can't just go and code anything that comes into your head and expect it to be copyrighted just because you made it.
In the case of software, the "originality" requirement really only means that the program must represent the independent effort of the author and not be copied from someone else's code or program. In some cases, an "original" work may have some elements that are completely original and some that are not, in which case, only the original portions will be protected by copyright.

would we call objectdock original? no, it looks like the aqua dock and it performs like the aqua dock so no its not original and therefore is not eligible for copyright protection as it already breaks the copyright that Apple already have on the dock.

In the case of software, copyright protection may apply not only to the literal computer code itself, but also to other non-literal aspects of the program, such as its look on the screen, its way of interfacing with the user, etc.
I dont think I have to explain this part any further
U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process.

Effectively that states that since Apple hold the original copyrights its up to them to decide if they want to make objectdock or any osx themes not Stardock and themers. I highly doubt that Apple would take the time to go after themers though when you have a much bigger corporation thats making the software enabling themers to do it ie objectdock, desktopx, windowblinds, objectbar. Surely seeing as how you have been on Wincustomize you should remember the bug Apple had up their ass about the Aqua Desktop X themes last year.

Just below that there's a bit about public domain. As of March 1 1988 no explicit copyright notation is required. Only if the software explicitly carries a notice of copyright abandonment does it become Public Domain.

Hello, you still have to have a copyright in order to have copyright abandonment and I've already stated when a work isn't protected by copyright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WickedKitten: ObjectDock would be protected by copyright. The quotes that you yourself posted make it quite clear:

In the case of software, copyright protection may apply not only to the literal computer code itself, but also to other non-literal aspects of the program, such as its look on the screen, its way of interfacing with the user, etc.

plus:

In the case of software, the "originality" requirement really only means that the program must represent the independent effort of the author and not be copied from someone else's code or program. In some cases, an "original" work may have some elements that are completely original and some that are not, in which case, only the original portions will be protected by copyright.

I'm pretty sure that ObjectDock was clean-room reverse-engineered, sincei doubt that Stardock had access to the source of Dock.app, and therefore, the code itself is an original work, and is therefore protected by copyright. The "look" of it, and the way it interfaces with the user, are not protected by copyright (well, they are for Apple...), and it's as ok for anyone else to rip it off as it was for Stardock - ie, it isn't, but i wouldn't be surprised if, that due to the large number of works based on the look of the Aqua dock, that the copyright applicable to the look fo the dock was sufficiently diluted, to the extent that any legal action about it would be on shaky ground. The various icons, etc, are another matter altogether, in that they are most likely registered as trademarks by Apple, and therefore their use by Stardock is a clear violation of Apple's rights.

None of that changes the fact that the code itself is an original work and is protected under copyright law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by arhra

WickedKitten: ObjectDock would be protected by copyright. The quotes that you yourself posted make it quite clear:

In the case of software, copyright protection may apply not only to the literal computer code itself, but also to other non-literal aspects of the program, such as its look on the screen, its way of interfacing with the user, etc.
This is how Apple was able to get Aqua dock copyrighted in the first place. It?s all original code, plus its creative and its in a tangible form. This is where the law gets very grey in that yes they would have had to use new code since I?m sure Apple didn?t just hand over the code to the Dock with a handshake and a smile, but the end result OF that code ends up doing the same thing as prior existing copyrighted code so therefore its not original. I don?t know if that?s making any sense or plus:>plus:
In the case of software, the "originality" requirement really only means that the program must represent the independent effort of the author and not be copied from someone else's code or program. In some cases, an "original" work may have some elements that are completely original and some that are not, in which case, only the original portions will be protected by copyright.

Like it says it cannot be copied from someone else?s code or program. Sure if I managed to build Windows XP from scratch just using a txt editor I?m sure that yes it would be independent and while it wasn?t copied from code since its all text it was copied from the program as in I built it to look like XP. The way Objectdock is coded might be original but its not original because its coded to do what the copyrighted dock does just in a different programming language therefore not making the code original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The code itself does fulfil the given legal definition of an original work though. Just because the UI was copied from the Apple dock, doesn't change the fact that the code is entirely original and not copied or derived from an existing work at all. You're confusing cause and effect. Following your line of reasoning, windows itself would not be copyrighted, since the end result of the code does the same thing as MacOS, which was released before it (provides for a WIMP GUI, provides file management functions, etc). If code that mimics something else is cleanly reverse engineered, it is a fully original work, no matter how precisely it mimics the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by arhra

The code itself does fulfil the given legal definition of an original work though. Just because the UI was copied from the Apple dock, doesn't change the fact that the code is entirely original and not copied or derived from an existing work at all. You're confusing cause and effect. Following your line of reasoning, windows itself would not be copyrighted, since the end result of the code does the same thing as MacOS, which was released before it (provides for a WIMP GUI, provides file management functions, etc). If code that mimics something else is cleanly reverse engineered, it is a fully original work, no matter how precisely it mimics the original.

Your looking at this in the wrong way. Technically there isnt any code that is original. Every single bit of code in existance has been used before, but its what you make WITH that code that determines its originality.

If the code mimics something else that is copyrighted sorry but a court is going to consider it a derivative work no matter what way it was made.

copyright in a work cannot protect un-copyrightable ideas and functional elements with that work.

they can't copyright the look, they cant copyright the effects, they cant copyright any bits in the code that would violate that, so like I've said, if you take all that out, whats left to copyright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Wickedkitten

they can't copyright the look, they cant copyright the effects, they cant copyright any bits in the code that would violate that, so like I've said, if you take all that out, whats left to copyright.

ObjectDock may achieve a similar result in a different way. Unless it does it in the exact same way as the apple code (impossible as it runs on a different OS) then it is original.

It is automatically copyrighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WickedKitten: you're confusing implementation with effect. While the code doesn't do anything copyrightable, the way it does that is copyrightable. The code is an entirely original work, that can almost certainly be used to produce entirely different effects, and with different icons, etc. The same code, with very few changes, could be used to produce something that bears no resemblance to teh OSX dock at all. THAT is why it is copyrightable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by arhra

WickedKitten: you're confusing implementation with effect. While the code doesn't do anything copyrightable, the way it does that is copyrightable. The code is an entirely original work, that can almost certainly be used to produce entirely different effects, and with different icons, etc. The same code, with very few changes, could be used to produce something that bears no resemblance to teh OSX dock at all. THAT is why it is copyrightable.

seeing as how the way they did it doesmore than resemble the OSX dock it's not copyrightable.

ffs you can't just do anything and expect it to be copyrightable.

It has to be original, creative, and tangible.

Yes they managed to make a dock on a pc, quite original but the dock in its tangible form is already ON aqua. The form, code, look, and tangibleness of it has already been made, copyrighted, and patented BY APPLE. I'm sure they could give a fig about whether stardock "created" it using an etch a sketch. ANY code that creates any of the effects seen on Apples dock is a derivative work of something that they once again made, copyrighted, and patented and is not subject to any copyright protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of

an "original" work may have some elements that are completely original and some that are not, in which case, only the original portions will be protected by copyright.
do you not understand?

The effects and look may not be copyrighted, but the code itself is an entirely original work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.