Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:14112 comp.sys.mac:14787 misc.legal:4471
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!macbeth!hallett
From: hallett@macbeth.steinmetz (Jeff A. Hallett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac,misc.legal
Subject: Re: What is the Copyright Issue?
Message-ID: <10256@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com>
Date: 5 Apr 88 14:52:32 GMT
References: <4611@june.cs.washington.edu>
Sender: news@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com
Reply-To: desdemona!hallett@steinmetz.UUCP (Jeffrey A. Hallett)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 51

In article <4611@june.cs.washington.edu> bnfb@uw-june.UUCP (Bjorn Freeman-Benson) writes:
>Consider music, books and chemicals:
>  * One can copyright a piece of music or a book.  One does not
>    copyright the process of typing it.
>  * One can patent molecules (such as anti-freeze).  One does not
>    patent the process or the machines to make it.

Bzzzt.  The process is exactly what you CAN copyright.  The copyright
statute in this area states that only physical processes can be
patented - laws of nature or ideas cannot be.  You can patent a new
chemical AND you can patent your process to make it and the machines
to make it with if they are new.  If some one comes along and finds a
new way to make the chemical, they may patent their alternative method
and machines to do it, but not the actual material.

>
>The weak analogy in software is:
>  * One can NOT copyright the software.  One can only copyright the
>    source and executable.

Actually, the source and exectuable IS the software.  One is not
allowed to patent software algorithms yet since they do
not represent a physical process - they more or less formulate a law
of nature.

I don't necessarily agree with this, but that is the current ruling.


>
>Does this make sense?  
>    No.  
>
>The copyright/patent applies the useful product, not to some intermediate
>stage.  What the courts have failed to realize is that the useful product
>in software is how it works, NOT the source code that produced it.
>

Probably does not make sense, However, it is justifiable.  If your
company comes up with an algorithm that gives them a competitive edge,
and someone else steals it, the courts may not uphold copyright.  They
feel that it is an attempt to copyright an IDEA.  Copyrighting ideas
would kill free enterprise so they discourage that.  It is really a
gray area.  The Apple case should be a landmark.


Jeffrey A. Hallett                     | ARPA: hallett@ge-crd.arpa   
Software Technology Program    	       | UUCP: desdemona!hallett@steinmetz.uucp
GE Corporate Research and Development  | (518) 387-5654
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
|                            Credo Quia Absurdum Est                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+