a computer program is not a patentable invention

Jon Kirwan wrote:

> Any substantial copy ot it should be in violation, unless it
> is for educational research purposes or personal use.  So I
> guess it is good it worked out that way.

Why should education and personal use be exempted, or
for that matter why should library of congress be exempted?


> Spielberg's Amistad and the ensuing plagiarism law suit
> illustrates a boundary.  An author, Chase-Riboud, was flown
> to LA to discuss the optioning of her novel, Echo of Lions.
> The court determined that DreamWorks didn't violate her
> copyright, though, and that the plaintiff couldn't 'sustain'
> her burden of proof as the book contained a love story that
> was different from Amistad.  They were quite similar on most
> other accounts, though, according to what I've read about
> this case.

A counter example is Alex Haley's book about Kunta Kinte.

> >There are real teeth in copyrights if they are exercised. Look at
> >some of the judgements in the music and movie industry. It
> >is not just a copy and on line distribution it extends to music and
> >musical arrangements.
>
> But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__
> exercized.  The BIOS case you talked about.  So your _if_ is
> already in hand.  Your implication is that they aren't, yet
> you provide your own contrary evidence.

Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can
happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights.
The choice to exercise them is not always made.

w..



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:37:14 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

>Jon Kirwan wrote:
>
>> >You can violate the copyright of a
>> >photograph by using similar composition.
>>
>> Example, please.  This sounds almost crazy to me and I'd like
>> to see just how "similar" you mean to suggest here.
>
>One that I am personally familiar with is the owner of a
>software games company had a very leather jacket that
>made him look like Indiana Jones and was successfully
>sued for having his own image on his product with a generic
>background of a central American jungle scene.
>
>Search for details on some of the Getty Museum
>copyright suites. Not all of them are exact images.

Can't find anything much here.  I've tried the following:

  +"Getty Museum" copyright suit
  Getty Museum copyright suit
  +"Getty Museum" "copyright suit" indiana jones

and so on.

I found this, but upon reading further saw it wasn't anything
close:

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Greek-bronze-will-stay-in-the-Getty-Villa%20/20504

I did try.  Maybe your familiarity can get you closer to
something usable?  Best of all would be a court document with
a legal decision expressed, of course.

Jon

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:46:12 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

>Jon Kirwan wrote:
>
>> Any substantial copy ot it should be in violation, unless it
>> is for educational research purposes or personal use.  So I
>> guess it is good it worked out that way.
>
>Why should education and personal use be exempted, or
>for that matter why should library of congress be exempted?

I believe educational research purposes already are exempted,
aren't they?  Under "fair use," limited copying without the
permission of the owner is allowed for some kinds of teaching
and research, if I recall.  And there are exceptions also for
the (entire?) reproduction by libraries and archives, memory
serving.

Regarding personal use, I didn't mean to suggest borrowing a
library copy, copying it for personal use, then returning the
original to a library.  Though I sometimes wonder.  I was
thinking more about making a second copy to hold elsewhere
against the risk of fire or water damage, for example.  I
certainly would also consider just buying another copy.  But
I think that may be allowed.  Also, I believe there is a
commercial value consideration in law in the US, and the
courts look at the market impact of the action taken as to
whether or not it is 'fair use.'

Anyway, that is what I was thinking about when I wrote less,
before.

>> Spielberg's Amistad and the ensuing plagiarism law suit
>> illustrates a boundary.  An author, Chase-Riboud, was flown
>> to LA to discuss the optioning of her novel, Echo of Lions.
>> The court determined that DreamWorks didn't violate her
>> copyright, though, and that the plaintiff couldn't 'sustain'
>> her burden of proof as the book contained a love story that
>> was different from Amistad.  They were quite similar on most
>> other accounts, though, according to what I've read about
>> this case.
>
>A counter example is Alex Haley's book about Kunta Kinte.

I was addressing myself to your assertion about violating
"the copyright of a novel just by using the same plot lines."
A single example is enough to muddy up that water.

>> >There are real teeth in copyrights if they are exercised. Look at
>> >some of the judgements in the music and movie industry. It
>> >is not just a copy and on line distribution it extends to music and
>> >musical arrangements.
>>
>> But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__
>> exercized.  The BIOS case you talked about.  So your _if_ is
>> already in hand.  Your implication is that they aren't, yet
>> you provide your own contrary evidence.
>
>Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can
>happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights.
>The choice to exercise them is not always made.

By whom?  The owners?  If that's all this is about, then you
seem to be arguing that owners don't now pursue copyright as
much because they have patents, but that if software patents
are removed from the picture that owners will then pursue the
copyright violations more than before?  Is that your point?

Jon

On Apr 18, 5:35=A0pm, David Brown
<david.br...@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:
> ...
> ....=A0I don't really object
> to people having rights over their creations and who can copy them - I
> can't see how there is any moral or ethical justification for these
> rights being valid 70 years after the author/creator is dead.

David, this is spot on.

Dimiter

Jon Kirwan wrote:

> >> But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__
> >> exercized.  The BIOS case you talked about.  So your _if_ is
> >> already in hand.  Your implication is that they aren't, yet
> >> you provide your own contrary evidence.
> >
> >Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can
> >happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights.
> >The choice to exercise them is not always made.
>
> By whom?  The owners?  If that's all this is about, then you
> seem to be arguing that owners don't now pursue copyright as
> much because they have patents, but that if software patents
> are removed from the picture that owners will then pursue the
> copyright violations more than before?  Is that your point?

The comment you are referring to came in response to the
apparent joy someone made at the start of the reversal of
software patents. My arguments have been consistently that
copyright law may be tougher with a body of precedents than
software patents.

I base that on significantly longer protection and court
precedents over damage awards that could be based on
actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of
content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally
change actual  over all practice. Software patents give a
lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of
redefined claims for short period of time. Copyright
gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations
for a long period of time.

Would the dropping of software patents make copyright
protection stronger? I don't but the sheer threshold of
getting a software patent made a lot of patentable
software relatively unprotected because the authors
didn't know that copyright protection could also
have provided them with a lot of adequate protection
through a court system that had dealt with copyright cases

w..




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:25:27 -0400, Walter Banks wrote:

> Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
> 
>> Walter Banks wrote:
>>
>> > You can violate the copyright of a novel just by using the same plot
>> > lines.
>>
>> If that were actually true, pulp fiction wouldn't exist.
> 
> This is how the business plan for example romance novels works. The
> publisher owns the copyright for a particular story formula and hires
> authors to write novels using the formula. Copyrights keep others from
> duplicating the story lines.

So which colour Mills & Boon do you write?

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:46:12 -0400, Walter Banks wrote:

> Jon Kirwan wrote:
> 
>> Any substantial copy ot it should be in violation, unless it is for
>> educational research purposes or personal use.  So I guess it is good
>> it worked out that way.
> 
> Why should education and personal use be exempted, or for that matter
> why should library of congress be exempted?

They are not cart blanche (sp), but under fair use, e.g. parts could be 
reproduced to illustrate educational points, for analysis, for crit?que, 
etc.

>

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:32:52 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

>Jon Kirwan wrote:
>
>> >> But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__
>> >> exercized.  The BIOS case you talked about.  So your _if_ is
>> >> already in hand.  Your implication is that they aren't, yet
>> >> you provide your own contrary evidence.
>> >
>> >Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can
>> >happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights.
>> >The choice to exercise them is not always made.
>>
>> By whom?  The owners?  If that's all this is about, then you
>> seem to be arguing that owners don't now pursue copyright as
>> much because they have patents, but that if software patents
>> are removed from the picture that owners will then pursue the
>> copyright violations more than before?  Is that your point?
>
>The comment you are referring to came in response to the
>apparent joy someone made at the start of the reversal of
>software patents. My arguments have been consistently that
>copyright law may be tougher with a body of precedents than
>software patents.
>
>I base that on significantly longer protection and court
>precedents over damage awards that could be based on
>actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of
>content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally
>change actual  over all practice. Software patents give a
>lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of
>redefined claims for short period of time. Copyright
>gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations
>for a long period of time.
>
>Would the dropping of software patents make copyright
>protection stronger? I don't but the sheer threshold of
>getting a software patent made a lot of patentable
>software relatively unprotected because the authors
>didn't know that copyright protection could also
>have provided them with a lot of adequate protection
>through a court system that had dealt with copyright cases

So the upshot is that because patents exist, some folks go
for that and in the process fail to consider copyright?

I must be having a bad day.  I'll re-read this tomorrow.

Jon

In article <3slhs5tkibsfl52ptthqsc0jd5nbev82us@4ax.com>,
Jon Kirwan  <jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

<SNIP>

>But I think the courts did, and my still, have some trouble
>parsing all this, correctly and well.  I doubt they are in
>nearly as good a position to make judgments on these topics
>and I suspect that law here is less well controlled by the
>judges and more controlled by the money funding the cases.

And of course they *should* be based on domain expert
witnesses, impartial and in good faith.

>
>Jon

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

In article <4BCB6184.B70A9999@bytecraft.com>,
Walter Banks  <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>
>
>Jon Kirwan wrote:
>
>> Any substantial copy ot it should be in violation, unless it
>> is for educational research purposes or personal use.  So I
>> guess it is good it worked out that way.
>
>Why should education and personal use be exempted, or
>for that matter why should library of congress be exempted?
>
>
>> Spielberg's Amistad and the ensuing plagiarism law suit
>> illustrates a boundary.  An author, Chase-Riboud, was flown
>> to LA to discuss the optioning of her novel, Echo of Lions.
>> The court determined that DreamWorks didn't violate her
>> copyright, though, and that the plaintiff couldn't 'sustain'
>> her burden of proof as the book contained a love story that
>> was different from Amistad.  They were quite similar on most
>> other accounts, though, according to what I've read about
>> this case.
>
>A counter example is Alex Haley's book about Kunta Kinte.
>
>> >There are real teeth in copyrights if they are exercised. Look at
>> >some of the judgements in the music and movie industry. It
>> >is not just a copy and on line distribution it extends to music and
>> >musical arrangements.
>>
>> But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__
>> exercized.  The BIOS case you talked about.  So your _if_ is
>> already in hand.  Your implication is that they aren't, yet
>> you provide your own contrary evidence.
>
>Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can
>happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights.
>The choice to exercise them is not always made.

You did nothing of the sort. You demonstrated the truth strength
of deep pockets in the US. The legislation and ideology of a country
is not god-given but it is there to serve its strength, lest it perishes.
As such the fundamentalist "freedom for the rich" ideology of the US
is on the loosing site compared to the more centralist ideology of China.
Especially the situation around IP is becoming counter productive.
IP is about things that don't exist (only the expression of IP exist),
and is a poor base for an economy.

There is only so much military superiority can do to compensate for
economic weakness. Not that the outcome of a confrontation between US
and China would be certain. The US might run out of spare parts after
two weeks of fighting ;-) , and there are no businessmen in China
willing to deliver in defiance of their government (as US patriots
would).

>w..
>--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst