[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
- From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:36:44 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcNGjybdM36WQIrHRQyqtHEH2UyA6AAcioiQ
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
> -----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!