RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton

["Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:54 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
> 
> 
> On 9 Jul 2003 at 13:22, Richard Hartman wrote:
> 
> Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment 
> -Unix and Norton
> Date sent:      	Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:22:29 -0700
> From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
> To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> > The thing here is that we would not be seeking
> > to _republish_ their fact database (which I have
> > no problem as classifying as copyrightable), merely 
> > to use it in a different environment then intended.
> > 
> > That is, writing our own virus scanner that makes
> > use of their .dat files.
> 
> But that's the point....If copyrightable it's not a .dat file 

You've completely lost me here.  I can't place copyrightable
content in a file named something.dat ?  

> and using it in a 
> different environment is a derivative work.  

Nope.  I have not altered the original one bit -- no
derivative work.  Just the original being used in a
different context.  

Kinda like a DVD being sold for set-top players but
someone makes a software player for their Linux box ;-)

(actually, if the .dat virus descriptions are encrypted
this would be an almost exactly parallel case!)

>So it'a can't be used!

I am not so sure.  It can't be _sold_ or otherwise
redistributed ... but it can surely be _used_.

> 
> And so....rather than being competitors for who can 
> consistently get out the 
> best and fastest anti-virus file since the top cannot RE the other or 
> incorporate it into their product even giving the victor a 
> time delay and Linux 
> lagging behind since it can only translate what's been done 
> since it doesn't 
> have the resources (yet....I can live in hope can I not?) the 
> laggard gets 
> whacked with copyright infringment suits...the runner up can 
> always claim hint 
> plus some RE

??? you've lost me again.  The question that started this
thread was "Suppose someone writes a virus scanner for Unix 
that uses Norton Anti-Virus  definition files rather than their 
code. Is that copyright infringement? Theft of trade secret? Or 
DMCA violation?"  A virus scanner for Unix would not be
a competitor in any way.  No rushing to incorporate the latest
of anything ... it's just a tool written to make use of
datasets that the other guy (Norton) is publishing.

I think that copyright might not be applicable here if you
aren't attempting to distribute the Norton virus dat files
with your tool.  What _might_ apply, though, is DMCA if they
have any sort of TPM (such as encryption) incorporate into
the file format.

> 
> Is that fair? Probably not? Is tha desirable? Probably not? 
> The question is how 
> to handicap the game. That particular market is really more 
> of a game than a 
> copyright 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > -Richard M. Hartman
> > hartman@onetouch.com
> > 
> > 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 10:29 AM
> > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
> > > 
> > > 
> > > the question of facts vs. copyright expression has to do with 
> > > a concept
> > > of "editorial discretion".  A database (full of facts) can be
> > > copyrighted (though not the facts themselves) if some 
> > > creative judgment
> > > or human editorial decisions are reflected in the selection of the
> > > facts.  Thus one could freely use any single fact (as it 
> is not and
> > > cannot be copyrighted), but could not freely republish the 
> > > collection of
> > > these facts.
> > > 
> > > As for programs, these "facts" are in their entirety the 
> "editorial
> > > discretion" of the programmer including, the choice of 
> variable names,
> > > the structure and order of the operations, the selection 
> of algorithm,
> > > the syntactic style ("{" on the same line as the conditional...
> > > please!), and myriad other unique creative details.
> > > 
> > > What is odd about this is that it is the mechanically transformed
> > > derived work (the .obj,.dll, and .exe (or .o, .lib, .so, 
> or a.out) )
> > > that is usually given copyright.  The actual creative 
> work is given
> > > copyright, but not required to be published.  The mechanistic 
> > > derivative
> > > work "inherits" the unpublished works protections (as a 
> derived work)
> > > but itself reflect *no* editorial discretion (except in the 
> > > defines and
> > > compiler options).  "Promote progress"... right!
> > > 
> > > <beat targ="dead horse">No derived work of a unpublished work 
> > > should be
> > > given published copyright.  The level of protection or 
> derived works
> > > should not exceed that given to the original work.</beat>
> > > 
> > > .002 
> > > 
> > > juergen + barbara wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > isn't then a program (software or hardware) a collection of 
> > > "just facts and
> > > > information into some (computer-understandable) arrangement 
> > > of bytes"?
> > > > 
> > > > where is the line of (perhaps protectable) computer code 
> > > and "just" data?
> > > > 
> > > > interesting.
> > > > 
> > > > *jm*
> > > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > > [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of
> > > > microlenz@earthlink.net
> > > > Sent: Montag, 07. Juli 2003 21:04
> > > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
> > > > 
> > > > On 7 Jul 2003 at 19:58, juergen + barbara wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > From:                   "juergen + barbara" 
> > > <jmhoraze@compuserve.com>
> > > > To:                     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> > > > Subject:                RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken 
> > > Experiment -Unix and Norton
> > > > Date sent:              Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:58:10 -0700
> > > > Send reply to:          dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > I venture they have stored the Virus-signatures in a 
> > > compact form, not
> > > > just a,
> > > > > say, simple list in a text file.
> > > > 
> > > > Doubtless but it's still just facts and information that 
> > > has been organized
> > > > into some arrangment of bytes. The arrangement cannot be 
> > > copyrighted and not
> > > > patented as well, although these days who knows.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, identifying and then listing a Virus-signature and 
> > > the remedy may be
> > > > > protected too.
> > > > 
> > > > Why? That's just facts as well. A partial remedy is no 
> > > remedy and neither is
> > > > too much of a remedy (Destroy the harddisk!) so there is 
> > > also no originality
> > > > in
> > > > the remedy.
> > > > 
> > > > (...)
> > > 
> > > 
> 
> 
> 



-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!