You're right, I shouldn't say that a copyright is "granted." The issue in 
copyrights is establishing that one in fact has the copyright, i.e., that one 
is the originator of the work or that one has obtained rights to it, and that 
it's something such that the government should recognize it as being subject to 
copyright law.

I've never heard of a "pattern" as something akin to a patent or a copyright, 
and a quick check of didn't clarify. Is it a concept used in 
Britain and/or Australia?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 06:51:42PM -0400, Benjamin Udell wrote:
> Of course Penrose in Britain was granted a copyright (which I hear has 
> expired) for the concept of the Penrose Tile -- the ability to create an 
> acyclic pattern using only two tiles. He started proceedings against somebody 
> for that (they settled out of court).

Surely not a copyright. And copyrights are not granted, they're invested in the 
work once created. Perhaps you mean a pattern, if not a patent.

*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.

A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                                 0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                   [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02

Reply via email to