31–38 of 38 posts
So that actually raises a question in my mind, does that make all database that don't include something new created by someone (I'm thinking book database, research databases) as non copyrightable? I'm thinking of phone books as an example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. But to be honest, the apology and climb down were pretty decent too. All too often these things are dragged out and fought tooth and nail, to nobody's benefit but the lawyers. Which is to say, the astrology people seem to be pretty decent folks about it, not SCO-type bipedal hagfish in 3-piece suits, or Rightshaven-style copyright sharks with a business model based on IP lawsuits. If I knew anyone who were into…
> Which is to say, the astrology people seem to be pretty decent folks about it, not SCO-type bipedal hagfish in 3-piece suits, or Rightshaven-style copyright sharks with a business model based on IP lawsuits. > If I knew anyone who were into astrology-type things, I think I might order them something from Astrolabe, as a small reward for the good behavior in dropping the suit. Regardless of stepping down, it was an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
frivolous is one thing, fraudulent is another. they filed a copyright claim on information that not only do they not own, information that it is not possible to own. this sort of behaviour should be punished.
One can make a honest mistake about the facts and the law. If every time that somebody is mistaken were to be severely punished, suing a large well lawyered entity would be completely impossible, since in the event of loss one will be surely ruined financially by the mandatory punishment. If however one can see that the suit is frivolous or malicious and it was known and explained to them and they still chose to proc…
It's done with, good - as it should be. No need for a witch hunt - but the lawyers who were pushing the issue forward probably should be sanctioned, this was very obviously frivolous and going nowhere.... and they had a professional duty to know that. There's no muddy water here... it's very clear cut.
So that actually raises a question in my mind, does that make all database that don't include something new created by someone (I'm thinking book database, research databases) as non copyrightable? I'm thinking of phone books as an example.
I think it depends. I'm pretty sure phone books and street directories are copyrightable. You can get copyright on collections of facts, this is how a phone book is copyrightable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anyone should be punished, it's the lawyers who enabled them to persist in this course of action. Perhaps basic facts can't be copyrighted, but sometimes collections of facts are given some protection. The telephone directory is a classic example. Given the sincerity of the apology, I think it was a honest mistake and a welcome example of the legal system working the way it should. At least after EFF is on the cas…
You have your example backward. Feist v. Rural held that telephone books are not subject to copyright. Just because something was laborious to compile does not make it copyrightable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/dbase.html
Many other collections of pure fact will meet those criteria as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. But to be honest, the apology and climb down were pretty decent too. All too often these things are dragged out and fought tooth and nail, to nobody's benefit but the lawyers. Which is to say, the astrology people seem to be pretty decent folks about it, not SCO-type bipedal hagfish in 3-piece suits, or Rightshaven-style copyright sharks with a business model based on IP lawsuits. If I knew anyone who were into…
Eh? They shouldn't have done it in the first place…
Many techies are steeped in IP rights issues, these people likely are not.
But my main point is that lots of long, drawn-out, expensive legal battles are started by someone who "shouldn't have done it in the first place". Society would be a lot better off if people would back down quickly and gracefully, as these people did.
My guess is that such covenants would not be binding on third parties who buy the underlying copyright/patent rights, but I don't really know.