Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site chronon.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!akguc!codas!peora!pesnta!pyramid!chronon!eric From: eric@chronon.UUCP (Eric Black) Newsgroups: net.legal Subject: Re: More on copyright Message-ID: <172@chronon.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Mar-86 03:20:54 EST Article-I.D.: chronon.172 Posted: Fri Mar 7 03:20:54 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 9-Mar-86 08:34:55 EST References: <1411@brl-smoke.ARPA>, <2017@uwmacc.UUCP> Organization: Chronon Computer Corp., Mtn. View, CA Lines: 54 > Now for my question: what exactly is copyrightable? Is a language >definition (e.g. C)? If so, would the copyright have to *specifically* >include said definition? In other words, if I invented a language called, >say, Tortuga, and copyrighted and sold a compiler, could somebody else >write their own version of Tortuga, without fear of legal action? Would >they have to call it something else, or could they in fact call it Tortuga, >assuming I haven't trademarked the name? Even given all the preceeding >protective measures, would it be allowable to call what is essentially >a Tortuga compiler something else, but claim (and advertise) 100% compatibility >with Tortuga source? And going even further (Apple vs DRI {GEM} & Atari vs >Whomever {Pac-man} notwithstanding), can *any* copyrighted program be rebuilt >from the ground up by a second party, preserving functionality, and be a >legally viable product? (Or is this where patents come into the picture?) > Any discussion on this subject would be appreciated, even if you actually >know what you're talking about (:-). > > - Joel Plutchak > {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster I would think that the description of the specification itself, i.e. a reference manual, would be copyrightable. The language itself would not be. Let's say, for example, that you create a new language, let's call it 'Beb'. You may publish a specification of that computer language, and the specification itself, and the user manual that you thoughtfully publish alongside, would be copyrightable. The *ideas* contained in them, i.e. the computer language itself, are *not* copyrightable. Your specific embodiment, the wording, the precise phrases used to get the message across, *are* copyrightable. You might, depending on who you are, register the very name of your language, "Beb", as a trademark so as to retain some sort of control on those who try to use your language's name on something else, since your wording may be copyrighted, your particular implementation (compiler and other environment) may be copyrighted, but the ideas may not be. Courts point out repeatedly that the written equivalent to "reverse engineering", what amounts to rewording and/or redescribing something which is copyrighted is *not* an infringement of that copyright. The Apple case is based on something altogether different, a "visual copyright", the same device as used by jewelry designers, sculptors, and other artists to protect their creative works from copying. The idea of the Apple-type desktop/workbench cannot be copyrighted, but the suit rested on the concept of the visual appearance being too close to the original (however bad an idea we all may realize it is to restrict the dissemination of that appearance). The "attract" phases of video games, the canned examples of play, are similarly protected, by *appearance*, not ideas. -- Eric Black "Garbage In, Gospel Out" UUCP: {sun,pyramid,hplabs,amdcad}!chronon!eric VOICE: (415) 941-0403 US SNAIL: Chronon Computer Corp. 2570 El Camino Real W. Suite 206 Mountain View, CA 94040