StyleXP themes on WinCustomize?

Monday, August 2, 2004 by caseagainstfaith | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk

I seem to remember a posting where it was stated that competing products to WindowsBlinds, such as LiteStep, are featured on WinCustomize because Stardock feels that supporting skinning in general is a "good thing" for everybody, or something like that. Do I recall correctly?

Okay, now, I suppose there might still be some leftover hard feelings about TGTsoft and the lawsuit, but, the suit has been settled. So, might it be possible to have SyleXP themes available on WinCustomize?
38 Reply 5 Referrals
First Previous Page 2 of 2 Next Last
SelfExiled
Reply #21 Wednesday, August 4, 2004 3:34 PM
Imagine this. I create a Program and a special file format. This special zip format(Iptheme for example) can read from a contained ini file and know where the icons and cursors contained in that package go, the name of the package, the author, etc. Then I create a program that executes the instructions in my special zip folder. This is much more complicated than a mere .doc file. You don't think I would have rights to my iptheme file. Then I guess I wouldn't have rights to the program that I created to read it. Or maybe someone changes my programs interface, relabels it and calls it their own. Then, should they be allowed to use my Iptheme file as well?

Frogboy
Reply #22 Wednesday, August 4, 2004 3:38 PM

With regards to intellectual property, companies have to defend that intellectual property or lose their rights.  That's what, for example, trade marks are so heavily enforced these days.

SkinStudio imports .msstyles.  But Stardock waited THREE years to do that.  If it weren't for Stardock's desire to honor Microsoft's wishes, it would have owned the whole .msstyles phenomenon (we were making .msstyles back in December 2000 before XP even shipped). 

It was only Stardock's refusal to use .msstyles without MS's permission that opened the door to programs like Style XP in the first place. 

Since Microsoft has done nothing to actively stop msstyles from being created, Stardock has the competitive right to make use of them as well.  From a business point of view, nothing would please us more than for Microsoft to aggressively eliminate third party msstyles. 

Ultimately, the rule and law is: He that creates a thing has certain rights over that thing.


SelfExiled
Reply #23 Wednesday, August 4, 2004 3:47 PM
Now with regards to the .msstyles format: If someone creates a bmp image or jpeg image is that copyrightable? According to you, it shouldn't be. The author did not create the bmp format or the jpeg format. This is similar to .msstyles files. The author does have a copyright on the images contained within that file. If the author then decides to convert his image files to another format, which doesn't belong to Microsoft, is he not entitled to do so? This is what Windowblinds does, and Stardock owns the rights to the wba format. Unlike TGT Soft which directly takes the Microsoft .msstyles file, reverse engineers and hacks the Microsoft operating system files and calls the .msstyles file their own. Yes, calling it their own because, they have not paid for the right to profit from this special Microsoft format.

azdruid
Reply #24 Wednesday, August 4, 2004 3:51 PM
Last time I looked there was a free version of WindowBlinds.

Problem solved!



Powered by SkinBrowser!

SelfExiled
Reply #25 Wednesday, August 4, 2004 4:03 PM
And to be even more legal, Stardock initially did not even use msstyles file(as Brad explained). Windowblind created its own file format and its own program to use that format. The recent usage of msstyles files were again as Brad explained. If there was a copyright against conversion, how could any graphic or word processing program even exist? Does one company own the PNG, JPEG, PSP and BMP formats? Does one company own txt, wpd, doc, files? Should conversion be allowed? No? Then, what about the programs themselves that use scripts? These are basically text files too. With your given scenario, as you can see, there would be no programs outside of Microsoft programs. This is just what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Microsoft for, and established fair program competition.

Formats such as txt and bmp are neccessary to run any program. Whereas, compiled file formats are not. They were specially created to use with the program itself. I.E.(Iptheme, msstyles, wba)

SelfExiled
Reply #26 Wednesday, August 4, 2004 4:05 PM
Last time I looked there was a free version of WindowBlinds.


Where? I'm sure Stardock would be interested in the location of such a windowblind program. Shareware is not free.

Frogboy
Reply #27 Wednesday, August 4, 2004 4:47 PM

Chas, you can copyright a format. I've just finished months of litigation on that issue.  You can copyright it. However, it's up to the copyright holder to decide whether to enforce their rights or not.  Clearly, MS has chosen not to enforce their rights with regards to .msstyles.  However, just as WinCustomize doesn't allow rips, even if they are merely "derivatives", we won't allow msstyles here unless MS gives us the okay.


SelfExiled
Reply #28 Wednesday, August 4, 2004 4:57 PM
I agree with you, and you should be able to copyright them. I was just pointing out how the doc format is much different than IPtheme or msstyles compiled format. Certain basis formats are neccessary for fair competition(doc,bmp). This is all I am saying. Stealing someones compiled format is like stealing their program.

Frogboy
Reply #29 Wednesday, August 4, 2004 8:04 PM

I think I agree there.  There are formats within formats.

.iptheme, for instance, is organized by a set of rules described as the INI format.  We copyright the keywords and such in .iptheme as well as each .iptheme file generated by IconPackager (the icon designer owns their icons of course).


caseagainstfaith
Reply #30 Thursday, August 5, 2004 9:35 AM
Well, as I said, I never knew file formats could be copyrighted. But, I will assume that people here know more than I do, and will drop the issue.

_footsie_
Reply #31 Thursday, August 5, 2004 10:02 AM
Most of this is waaaaay over my head...but I have a question and please don't laugh at how stupid it may sound to you...but some of us didn't really get a chance to even HAVE a computer most of our lives...much less understand the legal complexities of all the stuff that makes it run....

If I take a picture with a digital camera that I bought...play with it with the software program that came with the recharging dock....then save it and mess around with the picture a little more in paint....

does that mean kodak software owns my picture, microsoft owns my picture or do I own my picture...

???

_footsie_
Reply #32 Thursday, August 5, 2004 10:04 AM
...and if I copy it onto a floppy and edit it with the printer software on another computer that I have....does the printer software company own the picture....and if I print it out does the ink company own the picture...or the paper company?

??? I'm more confused by the minute.


paxx
Reply #33 Thursday, August 5, 2004 10:14 AM
You own your picture, of course. Kodak et al only own the technology that you used to make your image.

SelfExiled
Reply #34 Thursday, August 5, 2004 1:43 PM
Well, look at it this wasy, Mrs. Footsie. If a guitar player writes a song, does that mean that the guitar company who made the guitar owns his song, or the fingerpick company, or maybe Radio Shack since maybe he recorded the song on one of their recorders. I know its rare when a artist even owns the rights to his song because of contracts these days. But, that is another matter and quite heated so, I'll steer clear of that one.

IPlural
Reply #35 Thursday, August 5, 2004 2:23 PM
Mrs _footsie_


if you really want to go "hmmmmmm" read up on patten law

now that is rather wild and there are so many different directions one can take to either back up rights to own rights or to circumvent someone else's owned rights...





Powered by SkinBrowser!

SelfExiled
Reply #36 Thursday, August 5, 2004 2:51 PM
read up on patten law


I'll keep my hair, thank you.

_footsie_
Reply #37 Thursday, August 5, 2004 3:13 PM
ChasUGC and IPlural

Ok ok ok they're mine muahahahaha all mine I tell you ar ar



was being a little fretty wasn't I?

No I don't copy or use anybody else's photos pictures or poetry.

They're all products of me, my little camera, my little 'puter and my demented mind

what a woild what a woild

_footsie_
Reply #38 Thursday, August 5, 2004 3:15 PM
"No, sir I didn't see you playing with your dolls again, sir"

"Don't ever show that part again!!!!!"

"We've been jammed!"

"That's all I need....a Druish princess!"

omg roflmao


Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

  • Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
  • Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
  • Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
  • It's simple, and FREE!
Login
First Previous Page 2 of 2 Next Last

Home | About | Privacy | Upload Guidelines | Terms of Service | Help
Copyright © Stardock Corporation. All Rights Reserved.


web-wc01