|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 07:03 AM EDT |
What a thing for you to say!
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT |
And how exactly would that work from a legal stand point? How can anyone be
accused of violating a copyright on an unpublished document? If copyright
material is submitted for registration in an encrypted form when it is clearly
not intended for public consumption. It must be presumed that no one outside of
the registrant has access and therefore, copyright violation can not happen. If
the same material is released to the public in unencrypted form then the
unencrypted material should be registered so that the public can clearly see
what is protected by law.
As I understand it, copyright registration is not required but appropriate
copyright declarations are required on the published material. But how can they
be enforceable if the material can not be read? The legal principal of
"constructive notice" applies. Did the violator have reason to
believe the material was copyrighted? How could he if the material is
encrypted?
Proprietary material is also protected by trade secret law. The IP goons like
to cover things with copyright law since Disney and company persuaded to gov to
extend copyrights to 75 years (which is like practically forever in tech years).
But it doesn't make it right to use copyrights in these cases.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
