I have a question regarding people who mimic the appearance of controls whether that be native or non-native controls. If you look at Alex Restrepo’s RBComposer project for example, it says that it matches the look of Apple’s Quartz Composer.
https://github.com/alexrestrepo/RBComposer
I am not trying to slam the developer or suggest that he is breaking the law. I think it’s awesome work! I am just trying to ask if the law allows you to make ‘matches’ like this.
Thanks
“look and feel” is kind of a gray area is most respects I believe, particularly since almost every OS in existance today has visual aspects the mimic others, the concept of a “window”, drop down menus, combo boxes, and particularly when Apple WANTS your applications to have a particular visual theme.
The other side of that, is who is to say Apples original visual design was not influenced by a design work that came previous to their own? (because I bet if you did enough research, you’d find they probably did). Remember, a lot of that kind of work was done on paper with a pencil (or pen 
), and the first computer models attempted to be as familiar as possible, and thing evolved from there.
I think the only time you’d have a “legal” issue, was if you created an application that mimiced the “look and feel”, AND the feature/command set, in such a way there could be purposeful confusion on the part of the end user as to whos product did they buy. As in if they bought “your” product which was indistinguable from an Apple product, then Apple might feel their sales and reputation were at stake.
But as far as “law” is concerned… I don’t think you will find a published statute in any country, but each would be handled on a case by case basis between the two developers and the court system of the country involved.
Hasn’t Microsoft copyrighted both its “ribbon” interface as well as some programming function names? Was it “is”?
As far as I can tell, Microsoft has not attempted to flex its muscle in this regard…
Since, as Dave pointed out, look and feel is a very gray area, unless your app becomes immensely popular along the lines of Photoshop or similar, there is an extremely small chance that any large company is going to use resources to challenge your design. And, citing that same gray area, IMHO you are morally clear as well. Have at it.
[quote=285307:@Dave S]“look and feel” is kind of a gray area is most respects I believe, particularly since almost every OS in existance today has visual aspects the mimic others, the concept of a “window”, drop down menus, combo boxes, and particularly when Apple WANTS your applications to have a particular visual theme.
The other side of that, is who is to say Apples original visual design was not influenced by a design work that came previous to their own? (because I bet if you did enough research, you’d find they probably did). Remember, a lot of that kind of work was done on paper with a pencil (or pen 
), and the first computer models attempted to be as familiar as possible, and thing evolved from there.
I think the only time you’d have a “legal” issue, was if you created an application that mimiced the “look and feel”, AND the feature/command set, in such a way there could be purposeful confusion on the part of the end user as to whos product did they buy. As in if they bought “your” product which was indistinguable from an Apple product, then Apple might feel their sales and reputation were at stake.
But as far as “law” is concerned… I don’t think you will find a published statute in any country, but each would be handled on a case by case basis between the two developers and the court system of the country involved.[/quote]
Looks like you answered my question. I know that influence is not copyrighted, I was just thinking that literally copying the look may be seen as more than being influenced in the eyes of the law. But thanks for clarifying this. Thanks.
A true counterfeit requires an exact copy, intended to deceive. Anything that is not exactly the same is more of an influence. In commercial things, the most precious is the brand or the trademark.
If something looks and feels exactly like something else, and has a name meant to deceive, then chances are it will be struck in court. For instance in your example, something called Quartz RB Composer would have great chances to be infringing. Then it is all up to the plaintiff to decide if it is worth going after the publisher who, here, happens to be the author.
It is mostly a matter of potential damage to the good name.
If you target an audience that uses Photoshop a lot, and build a tool that helps in graphic designers, it might be wise to make your tool understandable. Maybe even use the same shortcuts.
I worked on a subtitle app. I use a lot of the same shortcuts as used in video editing programs. This way a user doesn’t have to learn the shortcuts. Same for icons. But, I don’t know how for I can go with that. Say, I have a small toolbar with buttons for selecting markers, placing incues and outcues, those icons are used by Apple’s Final Cut Pro, but also by other applications.
Sometimes copying is not a bad thing, to make the software easier to understand by the users. As long the application is not an exact copy of something that is already out there. But then, what is the point of making an exact copy…
All cars have the same kind of controls at the same place, their dashboard has often the same displays. Yet, it is not considered counterfeiting, because there is the notion of standard user interface. It tends to be the same for modern UI.
Parting too much from accepted standards is a sure way to have users drop the app as “not friendly”.
[quote=285372:@Michel Bujardet]All cars have the same kind of controls at the same place, their dashboard has often the same displays. Yet, it is not considered counterfeiting, because there is the notion of standard user interface. It tends to be the same for modern UI.
Parting too much from accepted standards is a sure way to have users drop the app as “not friendly”.[/quote]
Michel… Not all cars have the same controls in the same place… just like not everyone drives on the RIGHT (ie. correct) side of the road
Well, pedals are always in the same order, the wheel is in front and the gear knob on the right hand side of the user. So the turn signal.
There are differences for other controls, and indeed, in countries where they drive on the left hand side, all that is mirrored.
My point was to say that the car interface has become standard. Was not always the case. Aston Martin tried a car with the gear on the ceiling at one point 
Copyright may or may not be the issue you run into. Some ideas are covered by patents.
For example, on-screen measuring tools are protected by a patent that IconFactory owns (and they like to protect that one)
[quote=285402:@Michel Bujardet]Well, pedals are always in the same order, the wheel is in front and the gear knob on the right hand side of the user. So the turn signal.
There are differences for other controls, and indeed, in countries where they drive on the left hand side, all that is mirrored.
My point was to say that the car interface has become standard. Was not always the case. Aston Martin tried a car with the gear on the ceiling at one point ;)[/quote]
I drove a vehicle for a while, where the clutch was on the left, brake on the right (both foot operated), the throttle was in your right hand, and the gearshift was directly between your legs (Now THAT took some getting used to)
And I was pulling your leg… I had almost said YOUR car and MINE were different,but Googled it first, and found out that cars in France are built the same as US cars, unlike cars in the UK.
[quote=285475:@Tim Parnell]Copyright may or may not be the issue you run into. Some ideas are covered by patents.
For example, on-screen measuring tools are protected by a patent that IconFactory owns (and they like to protect that one)[/quote]
Yeah, there are patents around. And patent trolls. But we cannot live in fear.
Back in 2007 I received a nice cease and desist letter from a lawyer that I was infringing on a patent that protected the process to replace a couple of letters by a ligature. For instance oe by . I did cease selling the product I had at the time, and worked on another method. I ended up with a much better product.