Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!amdahl!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: does copyright cover public domain software? (long)
Message-ID: <839@rtech.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-Jan-86 00:18:09 EST
Article-I.D.: rtech.839
Posted: Fri Jan 24 00:18:09 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jan-86 08:30:28 EST
References: <775@lasspvax.UUCP>
Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA
Lines: 54

> >
> >- Words of Bill Svirsky ->If I write my
> >>own version of a best-selling program that looks and acts
> >>exactly as the original, but I give mine away for free, can I
> >>be sued?  
> >
> >I'd almost guarantee that you would be.  When you get to court, you...
> 
> A "copyright" is the right to control what copies
> (or elementary translations) of a sequence of words, a picture, or a
> sequence of bits (as in a ROM) are made, and by who. 
> 
> A sequence of algorithmic actions (ie,
> a "method of production", in Patent terms) does *not* qualify as a
> "sequence of words, a picture, or a sequence of bits". 
> 
> Why does this simple idea cause so much confusion on the net? 
> 
> garry wiegand 

One of the reasons that people are so confused about copyright law is that
so much misinformation is spread about it.  One bit of misinformation that
keeps being repeated is that copyright only covers duplication of sequences
of words, or pictures, or bits, or other physical manifestations of an idea.

A copyright protects the expression of an idea.  The user interface of a
program (the layout of the screens, the sequences of operations that the
user is permitted to do, the error messages, the use of function keys, etc.)
is an expression of an idea.  It especially is not a "sequence of algorithmic
actions", since the same user interface could be programmed many different
ways.

The main exception comes from Baker vs. Selden, in which the court
ruled that a copyrighted work describing a system or process may not be
protected if it would prevent others from using the system; that would make
the copyright like a patent.  (The case involved a book describing a
bookkeeping system.  The book contained a page showing a form for use with the
system.  The court ruled that the only way one could use this system was
to copy the form, and ruled in favor of the defendant on the grounds that to
do otherwise was to give the author the equivalent of a long-term patent on
the system.)  Every program I've seen that does anything substantial could
be redesigned to fulfill the same purpose without copying the exact user
interface, so I doubt that Baker vs. Selden is relevant.

To learn about copyright law, I recommend "The Copyright Book" by William S.
Strong (The MIT Press).  Strong is a copyright lawyer, so he knows what he's
talking about.  He's a good writer who manages to make a difficult topic
interesting and relatively easy.
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
"Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..."

{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff