|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 08:54 PM EDT |
In digging into this a bit further, it seems that many of the lawsuits involving
"theft of ideas" for books and movies are not being brought for
copyright violations but on other grounds, such as "breach of implicit
contract." In several cases (Ghost Hunters, Royal Pains, Coming to
America), the original authors successfully protected the ideas for these TV
shows/movie against TV networks and Paramount studios.
Perhaps copyright law does not protect the 'idea' of novels of books, but there
IS clearly a mechanism through which these ideas can be protected. Is there any
similar mechanism through which ideas behind software programs are protected?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nsomos on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 09:03 PM EDT |
Based on the 10th circuit case
Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries Ltd.
where the abstraction, filtration, comparison test was
outlined. This is designed to catch deliberate
copying while ignoring unprotectable elements.
A 'smart' software thief might do global replaces of
names and identifiers, so that the similarity to the
original is obscured. The abstraction step strips away
the cover of such mechanizations. The filtration step
removes any non-protectable elements. ...
-------------
First, in order to provide a framework for analysis, we conclude that a court
should dissect the program according to its varying levels of generality as
provided in the abstractions test. Second, poised with this framework, the court
should examine each level of abstraction in order to filter out those elements
of the program which are unprotectable.Filtration should eliminate from
comparison the unprotectable elements of ideas, processes, facts, public domain
information, merger material, scenes a faire material, and other unprotectable
elements suggested by <28 USPQ2d 1509> the particular facts of the program
under examination. Third, the court should then compare the remaining
protectable elements with the allegedly infringing program to determine whether
the defendants have misappropriated substantial elements of the plaintiff’s
program.
--------------------------------
From http://digital-law-online.info/cases/28PQ2D1503.htm
For the interested, more detail can be had there.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 06:46 AM EDT |
I will try to get back to you later.
Again: all of this ground was covered in Oracle vs Google
17 usc 102(b) is the key.
There are also lots of issues around fair use in software,
what constitues a work as a whole and many other
technicalities. It gets quite deep. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
17 usc 102(b) is the codification of Baker v. Selden into
law.
Baker v. Selden is a landmark supreme court ruling. Read it
I think it will answer your questions.
For extra credit then read: "COMPUTER PROGRAMS, USER
INTERFACES, AND SECTION 102(b) OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF
1976" by PAMELA SAMUELSON
It will explain things in depth for further insight.
This paper was referenced by Judge Alsup in Oracle v Google. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
