Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!purdue!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Must UNIX be a memory hog?
Message-ID: <31529@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 21 May 89 16:18:04 GMT
References: <159@zebra.UUCP> <1608@auspex.auspex.com> <2@minya.UUCP>
Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci.
Lines: 57


Actually, although humorous, I wonder about the legal implications of
that /bin/true which contains nothing but a copyright notice (and
perhaps one blank line.)

One could make an argument that AT&T ran around blindly copyrighting
everything in sight without being bothered to so much as inventory its
copyright value or verify that there were any contents to which their
copyrights could lay claim to or be properly assigned.

This would tend to open up the arguments that:

	A) There is no reason to believe that merely because
	AT&T has stamped a copyright on something that they
	seriously lay claims to it since obviously they have
	not bothered to consider what they have copyrighted.

	B) That AT&T stamps copyrights frivolously and was
	not motivated by the (claimed or implied) value of
	what they copyright to review its status. That is, the
	material is of no value to THEM, otherwise they would
	have reviewed it before assigning claims.

Put simply, it was of no value to AT&T since they could not be
bothered to inventory what they were copyrighting so why should such
copyrights be of any value to the courts (the courts here acting as
agents of the desires of society at-large to have a copyright
protection which, at the very least and most minimal test, reflects
the worth of the material being copyrighted TO THE AUTHOR.)

The copyright action was of no value to them so why should it be of
any value to the rest of us (ie. the society which grants the rights
under the copyright law)? We surely cannot exhibit more concern for
the value of the material than the author!

It was frivolously done not to protect creative work but merely to
exploit and abuse the copyright law as evidenced by their copyright of
an empty program file (and re-issuing it as such, repeatedly, even
long after it was surely brought to their attention.)

The copyright law must, at a minimum, presume that the copyrightor is
aware of what s/he is copyrighting and is prepared to divulge its
worth (even if only to the author.) Otherwise one has to assume
contempt for the copyright law, not a position I would like to be in.

I would be interested in any case law which dealt with frivolous use
of the copyright law who's only purpose was to restrain trade rather
than protect a creative work (eg. someone trying to copyright a blank
book and lay claim to the concept of a blank book, as opposed to the
design of a particular blank book.)

Food for thought.
-- 
	-Barry Shein, Software Tool & Die

There's nothing more terrifying to hardware vendors than
satisfied customers.