Designing the interface

Abstract

In this article we investigate the graphical user interface and in particular the humble computer icon as the perfect metaphor for the challenge of technology to intellectual property analysis. The interface acts in both a functional and a decorative manner. It may be designed for its attractiveness but it must also convey information as to its function. To the user, it may be the essential key to the interaction with the computer and its programs. Yet in computing terms, it contains—usually—merely one non-essential means to get to the required functions. At best the menus and icons are merely symbolic of the underlying programs they represent. In legal analysis, what is more important—its functionality or its look? Design law has its traditional role in protecting at the boundary between the aesthetic and the functional and we suggest that it could take a more prominent role in protecting graphical user interfaces. The new design regime in the UK and Europe highlights these issues. We consider the rationale for the 1988 ‘settlement’ of the relationship between Copyright, Registered Design and (unregistered) Design Right and ask whether that division has been maintained/destroyed in relation to graphical user interfaces under the regime introduced by the European Design Directive.

This article is a revised version of the paper ‘Iconoclasm’ presented at the BILETA annual conference (Durham, UK, March 2004) and published on the BILETA website at www.bileta.ac.uk.

Notes

This article is a revised version of the paper ‘Iconoclasm’ presented at the BILETA annual conference (Durham, UK, March 2004) and published on the BILETA website at www.bileta.ac.uk.

1 [1986] AC 577.

2 Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited [2002] FCAFC 112.

3 [1995] RPC 683.

4 [1997] FSR 401, Laddie J.

5 [1994] FSR 659, Jacob J.

6 [1998] FSR 651.

7 [1982] RPC 183.

8 [1982] RPC 166.

9 [2002] FSR 38.

10 [1978] RPC 473.

11 Section 7(1) Registered Designs Act 1949.

12 Section 7(2) Registered Designs Act 1949.

13 Section 1A Registered Designs Act 1949.

14 (1990) 740F Supp 37; discussed in E Cameron Lotus v Paperback, International Yearbook of Law Computers and Technology Vol 6, p 213, 1992.

15 (1992) 799 f Supp 1006; discussed in E Cameron Apple v Microsoft, International Yearbook of Law Computers and Technology Vol 7, p 243, 1993.

16 [1993] FSR 497 discussed in E Cameron John Richardson v Flanders, International Yearbook of Law Computers and Technology Vol 8, p 327, 1994 and E Cameron Ibcos v Barclays Mercantile, International Yearbook of Law Computers and Technology Vol 9, p 221, 1995.

17 [2000] RPC 95.

18 [1997] F.C.A. 490 discussed in E Cameron The measure of the program in Copyright, International Yearbook of Law Computers and Technology Vol 12, No 1, p 213, 1998.

19 s10 reads ‘… an expression, in any language, code or notation, of a set of instructions (whether with or without related information) intended, either directly or after either or both of …

(a) conversion to another language, code or notation;

(b) reproduction in a different material form;

(c) to cause a … [computer] … to perform a particular function’.

20 (1992) 173 CLR 330 was the first hearing and a the second hearing is (1992) 176 CLR 300.

21 Ibcos Computers v Barclays Mercantile Highland Finance [1994] FSR 275. One of the current co-authors has frequently suggested that the idea of computer program as a compilation is a dangerous one that leads to over protection of programs.

22 [1999] RPC 717.