[SAJ]

Not so. Look up the old case, Lotus v. Paperback Software, 1991. The court (incredibly!) ruled that, although Adam Osborne's spreadsheet code was indeed unique, Paperback's software had the same ''look and feel'' as 1-2-3, and thus was in violation of copyright for some reason or other (this latter was NEVER coherently explained, btw). ''Look and feel'', eh?

The net result implied, of course, was that a company can get protected status for ... a series of keystrokes! The originality of the code apparently constitutes no defense.

[sittnick]

Not so. Look up the old case, Lotus v. Paperback Software, 1991. The court (incredibly!) ruled that, although Adam Osborne's spreadsheet code was indeed unique, Paperback's software had the same ''look and feel'' as 1-2-3, and thus was in violation of copyright for some reason or other (this latter was NEVER coherently explained, btw). ''Look and feel'', eh?

That case was more comprehensible. Paperback Software (and Mosaic's "Twin") had the exact same menu structure and command set. It would be like Toyota suing Ford for making an exact replica of the front grille and dashboard. I'm not saying Lotus was right (in court, they actually used Excel as an example of how to make a spreadsheet without violating the look and feel.) Borland would also get sued over its Sprint word processor, which could mimic half-a-dozen other word processors (wordstar, multimate,word, wordperfect, etc.) by changing preferences.

I am thinking that the look nad feel cases might have as much to do with copyrights and trademarks rather than patents (Apple had GEM PAY for a trash can icon, one reason why Steve Jobs' NeXT and Microsoft used the black hole and recycle bin.