rec.autos.simulators

by **RickGent** » Mon, 27 May 1996 04:00:00

>This IS NOT A BREACH of licensing...if you don't use the name "Daytona"
>there is not a breach.

Not true. Daytona licenses the "likeness" of their track.

If you feel up to taking on Sega, be my guest.

Rick Genter
Technical Lead, IndyCar Racing II
Sierra On-Line, Inc.

by **John Mela** » Wed, 29 May 1996 04:00:00

>>This IS NOT A BREACH of licensing...if you don't use the name "Daytona"
>>there is not a breach.
>Not true. Daytona licenses the "likeness" of their track.
>If you feel up to taking on Sega, be my guest.
>Rick Genter
>Technical Lead, IndyCar Racing II
>Sierra On-Line, Inc.

Hello Loophole! They were using the likeness of Talladega! Not
Daytona!

Next?

They're not bugs! They're random features!

by **Steve Ow** » Wed, 29 May 1996 04:00:00

Yes, but this sort of case is exactly one of the things that's wrong with our
(U.S.) legal system.

Even if you're right, the cost to defend yourself against a huge corporation
(Daytona International Speedway) is just too high. Daytona knows this and they
know that they can force individuals into submission just by mentioning that
there might be a copyright or licensing issue. It happens all the time.

It sucks. It's unfair. And I will try to keep my hard earned dollars from
flowing toward Daytona (unless they change their mind about this). But
unfortunatly, I can't blame the folks at "The Pits" for their decision to
suspend the project.

-Steve

--
*****************************************************************************
Steve Owen "While you sleep, I am plotting world domination."

http://members.aol.com/StevenOwen/steve.htm NASCAR, Concerts, Counters & More
*****************************************************************************

by **Eldred Picke** » Wed, 29 May 1996 04:00:00

>That wouldn't fly at all. If you're using a logo/name, I'm sure that you'd be
>required to make the track associated with the name/logo in the sim look like
>and have the same handling characteristics as the real track. C'mon guys,

So in other words, if a company made a track, and it SUCKED, the track could
sue the programmers?<g>

________

Eldred Pickett

I am NOT paranoid. And why are you always watching me?!?

by **Eldred Picke** » Wed, 29 May 1996 04:00:00

>Subject: Re: DAYTONA - ITS NEVER GOING TO BE! :-(
>Date: 26 May 1996 18:01:33 -0400

>>This IS NOT A BREACH of licensing...if you don't use the name "Daytona"
>>there is not a breach.
>Not true. Daytona licenses the "likeness" of their track.

Just as Lotus sued other software companies for violating copyrights based on
'look and feel' of their program.
________

Eldred Pickett

I am NOT paranoid. And why are you always watching me?!?

by **Kirn Crom** » Wed, 29 May 1996 04:00:00

I have worked in collegiate athletics licensing and have some knowledge of
how other sports simulations avoid legal trouble. The key is to use
another name for the team (or in this case track) and with college players,
avoid using their actual names and images. With the Daytona track,
however, you cannot simply change the name because Daytona CAN challenge
the use of a track which is a graphic replication of itself, even if it
bears a different moniker. This is where the legal bills come in. If the
track administrators would NOT sign contracts guaranteeing exclusive rights
to their names and likenesses to software companies, they could allow
multiple representations of tracks in several simulations. Of course, it
can all come down to preference, and maybe Daytona just does not want its
track in the Papyrus product.

Kirn Cromur

by **Mark McCue** » Wed, 29 May 1996 04:00:00

Not true. I corresponded with ISC and they are well aware of the
popularity and preference to the Papyrus sim. It was more about Sega's
'exclusive' agreement with them.

--
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Later! |
| Markmc #35 |
| (Closed Beta 8/95) |
| http://www.katt.com/mmcars.html |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

by **El Phantasm** » Fri, 31 May 1996 04:00:00

| Just as Lotus sued other software companies for violating copyrights based
on
| 'look and feel' of their program.

...and lost

by Jo » Fri, 31 May 1996 04:00:00

>| Just as Lotus sued other software companies for violating copyrights based
>on
>| 'look and feel' of their program.
>...and lost

Thank goodness (and I'm a user-interface designer).

Joe

by **k..** » Fri, 31 May 1996 04:00:00

That's why I think that the tracks should just avoid exclusive agreements.
It would be much more lucrative, with the possibility of several products
bearing the tracks' names and likenesses. If Sega doesn't like it, tell
the company "tough" and to take its contract elsewhere.

Kirn Cromur

by **Mike** » Fri, 31 May 1996 04:00:00

>>| Just as Lotus sued other software companies for violating copyrights based
>>on
>>| 'look and feel' of their program.
>>...and lost
>Thank goodness (and I'm a user-interface designer).
>Joe

You might want to check out a white paper entitled "A Manifesto
Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs." Columbia Law
Review Vol 94, No. 8 Dec 1994. Basically, the authors propose that
"the look and feel" of a program should be protected and they are
working/lobbying hard to create this "holistic" standard of
protection. They assert that the traditional standards of protection
developed for literary works do not provide adequate protection as
software is not analogous to writing. i.e. It's not the code that
needs protection, but what the code does. Any way, it's an interesting
and accessible read. My personal opinion is that even though Lotus
failed, this may be due to the characterictics of the bench. i.e.
Judges steeped in the protection of literary works. Good or bad, I
think this "new" standard will become, in essence, the standard for
software protection.

Just thought you might like to know if you were not already aware of
it.

Mike

by Jo » Fri, 31 May 1996 04:00:00

>You might want to check out a white paper entitled "A Manifesto
>Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs." Columbia Law
>Review Vol 94, No. 8 Dec 1994. Basically, the authors propose that
>"the look and feel" of a program should be protected and they are
>working/lobbying hard to create this "holistic" standard of
>protection. They assert that the traditional standards of protection
>developed for literary works do not provide adequate protection as
>software is not analogous to writing. i.e. It's not the code that
>needs protection, but what the code does. Any way, it's an interesting
>and accessible read. My personal opinion is that even though Lotus
>failed, this may be due to the characterictics of the bench. i.e.
>Judges steeped in the protection of literary works. Good or bad, I
>think this "new" standard will become, in essence, the standard for
>software protection.

I can think of nothing that could be more damaging to the computer
industry than this kind "look and feel" or "holistic" protection. The
ver idea is offensive (and again I remind you, I'm an interface
designer - I would personnaly stand to gain both financially and
professionaly by such protection).

Computers are being used more and more in our society, and such
protection is not only counter-productive, it could well be extremely
dangerous. User-interface design (or "human factors engineering", as
it was sometimes called) is not a science that began with computers,
it really started with airplaine control design. Early in the days of
aviation it was quickly discovered how certain control configurations
(e.g., an analog altimeter instead of a digital one) were much safer.
How many lives would have been lost in other planes if that control
design was "protected"? As I said, computers are being used in more
and more such "mission-critical" functions like airplane controls,
that such "protection" would by extremely unethical.

I feel so strongly about this that I will do everything in my power to
fight such an unwise idea. Including, if necesary, re-developing
"protected" interfaces and distributing them as freeware on the
Internet.

Joe

by **Eldred Picke** » Sat, 01 Jun 1996 04:00:00

>Subject: Re: DAYTONA - ITS NEVER GOING TO BE! :-(
>Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 01:30:34 +0200
>| Just as Lotus sued other software companies for violating copyrights based
>on
>| 'look and feel' of their program.
>...and lost

Ok, but how much did it cost the other companies to DEFEND themselves?

________

Eldred Pickett

I am NOT paranoid. And why are you always watching me?!?

by **Mike** » Sat, 01 Jun 1996 04:00:00

>I can think of nothing that could be more damaging to the computer
>industry than this kind "look and feel" or "holistic" protection. The
>ver idea is offensive (and again I remind you, I'm an interface
>designer - I would personnaly stand to gain both financially and
>professionaly by such protection).
>Computers are being used more and more in our society, and such
>protection is not only counter-productive, it could well be extremely
>dangerous. User-interface design (or "human factors engineering", as
>it was sometimes called) is not a science that began with computers,
>it really started with airplaine control design. Early in the days of
>aviation it was quickly discovered how certain control configurations
>(e.g., an analog altimeter instead of a digital one) were much safer.
>How many lives would have been lost in other planes if that control
>design was "protected"? As I said, computers are being used in more
>and more such "mission-critical" functions like airplane controls,
>that such "protection" would by extremely unethical.
>I feel so strongly about this that I will do everything in my power to
>fight such an unwise idea. Including, if necesary, re-developing
>"protected" interfaces and distributing them as freeware on the
>Internet.
>Joe

Unfortunately, IMHO, law very often serves specific interests and
cares little about what is in the best interests of society. Something
deep within me finds the idea of "holisitic" protection repulsive. I
agree that society may stand to benefit greatly from the free
distribution of interface designs. However, I can see the
counter-arguments already being prepared in defense of such
protection. (Not that I agree with them) i.e. 1. We should reward the
ingenuity, risk taking and effort of those who produce such designs.
This can only be achieved via legal protection. 2. Such protection
serves as an incentive to continue development and research by
requiring that a competitor "leap-frog" the existing *** design.
Society actually benefits by the development of "better" interfaces.
3. If you wish to distribute your design w/o protection, you are free
to do so. Eliminating/restricting the means of protection available to
others, however, infringes upon their right to ...(insert claimed
right.)

Of course, there are many counter-arguments to the above. (In my mind,
I see the waste of societal resources in such an approach as providing
a counter-balance to any possible benefits.) But, the legal system is
concerned with the rights of individuals and is very rarely concerned
with the benefit of society as a whole. Perhaps this is merely b/c an
individual is more tangible than "society." I tend to believe that
this is only part of the answer. The rest concerns my political
beliefs and involves the distribution of wealth and power.

As you can see, I am v. interested in this topic and we could consume
more than a few pints yapping on about it. I, for one, admire your
convictions.

Mike

by **Mike** » Sat, 01 Jun 1996 04:00:00

>>| Just as Lotus sued other software companies for violating copyrights based
>>on
>>| 'look and feel' of their program.
>>...and lost
>Ok, but how much did it cost the other companies to DEFEND themselves?

This is a good point that is often overlooked when discussing legal
remedies. When does any corp. win a legal battle? Of course, a
simplistic formula would merely involve the balancing of net gains
against the net cost of pursuing such a battle. But how do we measure
the losses and gains and where do we stop? Perhaps some legal
economists out there would care to jump in?

Mike