[OSGeo-Discuss] copyright question

[Landon Blake]

Puneet,

That was a most excellent summary of the differences between a patent
and a copyright. Thank you for providing it.

Landon
Office Phone Number: (209) 946-0268
Cell Phone Number: (209) 992-0658


-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of P Kishor
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 4:25 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] copyright question

On 12/10/08, Chris Puttick <chris.puttick at thehumanjourney.net> wrote:
>
>  ----- "P Kishor" <punk.kish at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Bart van den Eijnden (OSGIS)
>  > <bartvde at osgis.nl> wrote:
>  > > So if the project had been formed, but does not contain any
source
>  > code as
>  > > yet it's possible? Or am I misinterpreting your words?
>  >
>  > Well, it is entirely possible that I am misinterpreting your words.
I
>  > am not sure what is a "project" as different from the code? How can
>  > there be a project if there is no code? Besides, a project is not
>  > copyrighted... it is the code that is copyrighted, and that is done
>  > by
>  > considering software source code as a literary work actually.
>  >
>  > If "projects" without code could be copyrighted then every joe the
>  > plumber would dream up of all kinds of fanciful projects that only
>  > exist in ones mind, and copyright them. Then everyone else would be
>  > shut out.
>  >
>  > A clever lawyer could also argue that the "project" is an idea,
while
>  > the code is the expression of that idea. Since ideas can't be
>  > copyrighted, there you go. Consider this example -- I have this
>  > wonderful idea that given an address, the computer should be able
to
>  > figure out the lat/lon. I call this "project" by the name
"geocoding"
>  > and copyright it even though I haven't written a lick of code. Now
>  > everyone else is shut out from writing computer programs to do
>  > geocoding. That wouldn't be nice, would it?
>  >
>
> I believe in the US that is known as a "patent" ;)
>


That is actually a very good point, but a bit tangential to this
entire discussion. My example was contrived. A better example would be
-- "Let's say I have an idea about a book in which someone kills
someone else, then a wise guy figures out whodunnit. I copyright that
idea. Now anyone wanting to write a mystery novel is out of luck.
There goes Agatha Christie's career."

On the other hand, software is a murky world. Treated as a literary
work, it is protected by copyright. A method for doing something, on
the other hand, treated as a "device," is patentable.

The difference to appreciate is how patents v. copyrights work (all
discussion confined to the US where I live and the only place whose
laws I have only begun to understand). Copyrights are like a natural
right. You don't need anyone's permission to obtain one. You get a
copyright at the instant of the creation of your work. But, you have
to create your work first -- "fixed in a tangible medium."

Patents, on the other hand, are not a natural right. They are more
like property right. You acquire a patent when someone (the patent
authority in your country, USPTO in the US) deems that you should be
given a patent. Patents are given in inventions. There was a time when
the invention actually had to be deposited in the patent office before
it could be considered for a patent. Interestingly, now the invention
doesn't have to deposited, but just a blueprint of the invention has
to be submitted. In other words, the word "invention" doesn't mean
what, at least I, think it means -- a physical device. It can indeed
just be an idea in my head, but it has to be a "workable" idea. One
could argue that how could something "work" if it is just in my head.
Well, if I could describe how something could work, and convince the
patent examiner of it having certain qualities necessary to make it
patent-worthy (novel, non-obvious, patentable-subject-matter, yadda
yadda) *and* "reduce it to practice," that is, provide clear
instructions so that a PHOSITA (person having ordinary skill in the
arts) can reproduce them, I would get a patent.

So, consider --

copyright - acquire naturally and instantly upon creating an expressive
work
patent - given through an administrative process lasting a few years

copyright - need to create a work, but don't need to tell anyone of it
patent - don't need to create a physical work, but do need to tell,
first the patent office, and then, upon receiving the patent, tell the
world

The discussion in this thread was more about assignment of rights in
things created either now or in the future via contracts. So, it is
more a domain of contract law than IP law.


-- 
Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org/
Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/
Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) http://www.osgeo.org/
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Warning:
Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately.