John Summerfield wrote:
> 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.
Don't you think the major stockholders don't already know this?
This puffing of the stock (is FoxNews saying nice things about
them again?) is cutting how much they were losing, y'know.
The question is whether any of the mutual/pension funds are
buying in; I would suspect not. If they had some they've
dumped it by now.
So a lot of "little guys" are likely to get hurt as the big
dogs get their butts out.
--
John R. Campbell Speaker to Machines [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Grace is sufficient so Joy was let go." - Heather L. Campbell
"Faith manages ... even though she didn't get promoted" - me
