On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Henry Schaffer wrote: > Rod writes: > >... After all, how many people have looked > >at some code and said "Oooh, that's neat!" and then reused the > >concept somewhere else? > > IANAL - but AFAIK concepts can't be copyrighted. Certainly there is a > gray area between using the same concept and the protected "derived > from" - but there still is a difference.
If I read abook then write another very like it, I might be had for plagiarism (unless I credit tha author). If I simply copy great slabs of it without licence to do so, then I can be had for copyright violation, twice over. If I learn how to make a widget your way, I can be had for patent violation, even if I discovered the method independently. I recall there was some conflict over Aluminium, between am "old European" and an American about this. The other ethical way to protect IP is by contract. If it's copyright or patented, it's not a secret. What bothers me about this SCO affair is the investors. Either the share price is supported by a bunch of ignorant clowns, or they think there's something in the SCO claims. Either way, in some sense they justify the SCO actions. If the investors desert, then the SCO case folds. -- Cheers John. Join the "Linux Support by Small Businesses" list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb Copyright John Summerfield. Reproduction prohibited.
