tessler@dbase.UUCP (Steven Tessler) (03/28/88)
You can copyright the expression of an idea but not an idea. For example, if program 'A' is a check book balancing program and program 'B' is also a check book balancing program and both programs "look and feel" similar but the source code is substantially different then both programs are different expressions of a like idea. Neither program 'A' or program 'B' is a copy of one another so how could a copyright of program 'A' be infringed by program 'B'? The issue of "Look and Feel" being copyrightable has not been established concretely. The Lotus suit against '123' clone 'VP Planner' by Paperback Software is still in litigation.
dee@cca.CCA.COM (Donald Eastlake) (03/31/88)
In article <337@dbase.UUCP> tessler@dbase.UUCP (Steven Tessler) writes: >You can copyright the expression of an idea but not an idea. True. >For example, if program 'A' is a check book balancing program >and program 'B' is also a check book balancing program and both >programs "look and feel" similar but the source code is substantially >different then both programs are different expressions of a like idea. Not at all clear. What is "substantially" different. A different language and all different variable names but identical structure? A totally different structure and user interface? >Neither program 'A' or program 'B' is a copy of one another so how >could a copyright of program 'A' be infringed by program 'B'? The line between idea and express is by no means clear. First of all, a copyright protects you only against copying. (I think some of these messages are getting muddled up in trade mark, patent, and general unfair competition laws. So if, for example, you can't show that someone had access to your work, you generally can't get them for copyright infringement because you can't prove they copied it. But it does not have to be an exact bit for bit copy. Copyright also protect derivative works. So if they take a program of yours and translate it in a straightforward way to another computer language or CPU it would seem just the same as translating a novel into another human languate and you are protected. Since the whole idea is to ecourage creation by allowing authors to reap the fruits of their creativity, if you put a lot of effort into the organization of your code and data, why should you not be protected to the same extent that, for example "characters" like Superman or detailed plots are protected against someone who copies them just changing minor details? In fact, this now seems to be the case as there is a judgement on record where someone programmed a software package for a dental office in one language where they retained the copyright and licensed the use of the software. The office then totally re-coded it in BASIC and proceeded to sell it but with the same general menu sequences, flow of control, data organization, etc. Testimony showed that most of the effort in the creation of the package had been related to study of the problem, design, modification based on user feedback, etc., and relatively little effort on the coding itself. Also, there were many other ways the program could have been organized. The court held that the BASIC version was a derivative work in violation of the copyright. The "expression" included the organization of the program and the "idea", which could not be copyrighted, was the general idea of a dental office package and the general services it offered. Obviously, as with all intellectual property issues, there is a conflict between property and freedom and it is not clear where to draw the line but it seems to me that the cases which come to trial that I have heard about have been individually decided in a reasonable fashion. And the concept of "fair use" colntinues to provide breathing room. This is not to condone the way our legal system gives the party with the most resources so much clout. -- +1 617-969-9570 Donald E. Eastlake, III ARPA: dee@CCA.CCA.COM usenet: {cbosg,decvax,linus}!cca!dee P. O. Box N, MIT Branch P. O., Cambridge, MA 02139-0903 USA
darryl@ism780c.UUCP (Darryl Richman) (04/01/88)
In article <337@dbase.UUCP> tessler@dbase.UUCP (Steven Tessler) writes: >You can copyright the expression of an idea but not an idea. Right. >For example, if program 'A' is a check book balancing program >and program 'B' is also a check book balancing program and both >programs "look and feel" similar but the source code is substantially >different then both programs are different expressions of a like idea. >Neither program 'A' or program 'B' is a copy of one another so how >could a copyright of program 'A' be infringed by program 'B'? This is a confusion of two different copyright issues. If A and B look and feel the same, regardless of their internals, one may be in conflict with the other's copyright. This is because it may be copying an audio- visual work. The source code for a program may be copyrighted as a literary work. In this case, it would appear from the direction that the courts are going (as interpretted by myself!), that the basic structure and algorithms used are the turning point for determining if the expression has been copied. An analogy might be a book, where the story line is the same, the characterizations are very similar, but the place and people names and unimportant, background details have been changed. Most commercial applications are now copyrighted as both a literary work to protect the code and as an audiovisual work, to protect the "user interface". The reason for this approach is that, for example, I could steal your code for a dental office manager, and by changing all of the visuals, call it a legal office manager. Depending how your application was built, their might not be ANY on screen resemblance (although the order and format of data entry would be the same), but the code would be very similar. --Darryl Richman -- Copyright (c) 1988 Darryl Richman. The views expressed are the author's alone. INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation -- An Eastman Kodak Company ...!{cca!ima | sdcrdcf}!ism780c!darryl or darryl@ism780c.isc.com "I'm disappointed too, but keep in mind that Transmogrification is a new technology." --Calvin
tessler@dbase.UUCP (Steven Tessler) (04/08/88)
In article <26342@cca.CCA.COM> dee@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) writes: >The line between idea and express is by no means clear. First of all, a The line between an idea and an expression of an idea is distinguishable in copyright law. >on record where someone programmed a software package for a dental >office in one language where they retained the copyright and licensed >the use of the software. The office then totally re-coded it in BASIC >and proceeded to sell it but with the same general menu sequences, flow >of control, data organization, etc. >...The "expression" included the organization of the program and the >"idea", which could not be copyrighted, was the general idea of a dental >office package and the general services it offered. The analysis of the logical/physical data flows of a business is not the the creation on an idea but rather the documentation of an existing system. The automation idea is still an idea which cannot be copyrighted. Only the expression of the idea is can be copyrighted! (Please cite the specific case to afford additional inquiry.)
darryl@ism780c.UUCP (Darryl Richman) (04/10/88)
In article <343@dbase.UUCP> tessler@dbase.UUCP (Steven Tessler) writes: <In article <26342@cca.CCA.COM> dee@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) writes: <>The line between idea and express is by no means clear. First of all, a < <The line between an idea and an expression of an idea is distinguishable <in copyright law. Unfortunately, it is not particularly made clear by copyright law. In fact, there was a specific decision that indicated that a firm line could not be drawn and that the trier (judge or jury) of the case had to decide individually. This point was noted in my background article. <>on record where someone programmed a software package for a dental <>office in one language where they retained the copyright and licensed <>the use of the software. The office then totally re-coded it in BASIC <>and proceeded to sell it but with the same general menu sequences, flow <>of control, data organization, etc. <>...The "expression" included the organization of the program and the <>"idea", which could not be copyrighted, was the general idea of a dental <>office package and the general services it offered. < <The analysis of the logical/physical data flows of a business is not the <the creation on an idea but rather the documentation of an existing system. <The automation idea is still an idea which cannot be copyrighted. <Only the expression of the idea is can be copyrighted! < <(Please cite the specific case to afford additional inquiry.) This case is Jaslow v. Whelan. It was also cited in my background article. If you can't find it, send me a request and I'll send it back. In this case, Whelan Associates produced part of a dental office system, but never did satisfactorily complete the work. Jaslow Dental Labs, who had paid for the work, got tired of waiting and hired a teenager to recode the application and get it going, which he did. This decision was quite broad, and I think a case could be made that many Mac applications, which are based on the event loop program that Apple has copyrighted, may be violations. Especially the simpler text editors, which are but derivative works of the Apple editor that was also published as a programming guideline (and duly copyrighted). --Darryl Richman -- Copyright (c) 1988 Darryl Richman. The views expressed are the author's alone. INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation -- An Eastman Kodak Company ...!{cca!ima | sdcrdcf}!ism780c!darryl or darryl@ism780c.isc.com "I'm disappointed too, but keep in mind that Transmogrification is a new technology." --Calvin