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 7:58 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
> 
> 
> On 9 Jul 2003 at 13:28, Richard Hartman wrote:
> 
> Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment 
> -Unix and Norton
> Date sent:      	Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:28:03 -0700
> From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
> To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:43 AM
> > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > 
> > > This one piece out of order...
> > > 
> > > > ... the kind of editing that would be
> > > > necessary to transform database to a copyrightable work 
> > > would also negate the
> > > > utility of a database and 
> > > 
> > > If you define database narrowly to only mean a complete 
> > > transcription of
> > > offline records into online form, I agree.  I think the term is
> > > broader.  Back to the "Norton" example, Norton (check their 
> > > website) has
> > > decided (editorially) that "Spyware" like Gator et. al. is 
> > > not "a virus"
> > > and therefore won't include it in it's virus signature 
> database, nor
> > > remove it (grumble, complain).  While the virus 
> definition file *is* a
> > > database, it reflects a set of conscious editorial 
> decisions on what
> > > does and does not constitute a virus.
> > 
> > Moreover, the issue of _how_ to describe the virus signature
> > also involves selection.  The 5th and 8th bytes?  The 12th
> > and 57th?  The combination resulting by adding the 38th byte
> > to 57 and dividing by 2?  Each "fact" in their database is 
> > a result of analysis and choice on the part of their
> > virus researchers.
> 
> That's called an algorithm....not copyrightable....I haven't 
> seen the more 
> recent case but at one time the Supremes ruled that an 
> algorithm seem to be a 
> fact of nature and not even patentable.
> 
> 

Not all virii could be identified by the same algorithm.
Each virus must be individually analyzed and a signature
that would identify it discerned.  This is not an algorithmic
process -- it is research.

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

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