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

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

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.


-- 
-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 work "inherits" the unpublished works protections (as a derived work)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No derived work of a unpublished work 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.
> > 
> > (...)
> 
>