I must be missing something from your argument. It sounds like you are describing copyright infringement. If so, the impediment can be removed if the court agrees.
Rod On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) wrote: > If, when impeded in some way from undertaking one of the actions > exclusive to the copyright holder, a copyright holder could go to court > and use the copyright rights to overcome the impediment - that would be > an exercise of an affirmative right. > > As I am not aware of an example of a copyright holder exercising a right > in such a way, I continue to find it most helpful to think of copyright > as a negative right. > > -- Scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Stanco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 8:07 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal); 'John Cowan' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL > > > Scott, > > my understanding is the same as Larry's. Copyright provides exclusive > plenary rights to the owner. Patents provide the owner only with the > right to exclude others. I think the distinction was grounded in the > fact that it would be hard to conflict with someone else's copyright in > an original work (which usually stood alone), while complex, > interrelated processes/machines could easily involve multiple and > conflicting patents. As a result, patents are only negative rights and a > person's exploitation of a particular patent in subject to the non > existence of conflicting patent(s). > > Best regards, > Tony > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal)'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'John > Cowan'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 8:39 PM > Subject: RE: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL > > > > Scott Peterson wrote: > > > The rights provided under US copyright law are negative rights (the > > > right to exclude others), not positive rights (the right to do > > > something yourself). > > > > I don't think so, Scott. At least that's not how the copyright act > > reads: > > > > "...The owner of copyright under this title has the > > exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the > > following...." > > > > The patent law is exactly the opposite. > > > > "...Every patent shall contain ... a grant to the patentee ... > > to exclude others from using or selling...." > > > > /Larry Rosen > > > > -- > > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
