[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: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:57:51 -0700
- In-reply-to: <255195E927D0B74AB08F4DCB07181B904C56B4@exchsj1.onetouch.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
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" <email@example.com>
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Zulauf [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:43 AM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
> > email@example.com 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.
> -Richard M. Hartman
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!