Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!cae780!ubvax!weitek!mahar
From: mahar@weitek.UUCP (Mike Mahar)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Cloning the new IBMs without violating copyrights
Message-ID: <313@attila.weitek.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-Apr-87 20:52:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: attila.313
Posted: Thu Apr 30 20:52:23 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 3-May-87 05:15:22 EDT
References: <766@vaxwaller.UUCP> <2643@phri.UUCP> <3087@diku.UUCP> <489@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <2522@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Reply-To: mahar@attila.UUCP (Mike Mahar)
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 19

There is a concept in the U.S. called restraint of trade. A corporation
can't require a copyright notice to be an integral part of the function
of a machine. A competitor would simply put the copyright notice in
his machine because it is required to make it work. If IBM objects
on copyright infringements there is a good case that the intent of the
copyright is to restrain compitition. A court would likely rule that
the copyright is now part of the communications protocol and therefore
in the public domain.  A copyright lawyer told me this when I was at
another company and we were considering somthing like that. I doubt
IBM whould risk loosing their copyright notice to the public domain or
the possible punitive action resulting from obvious restraint of trade.

-- 

	Mike Mahar
	UUCP: {turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!mahar

	Disclaimer: The above opinions are, in fact, not opinions.
	They are facts.