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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

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 and using it in a 
different environment is a derivative work.  So it'a can't 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

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.
> > > 
> > > (...)
> > 
> >