458 lines
23 KiB
Plaintext
458 lines
23 KiB
Plaintext
|
From: Jordan J. Breslow
|
|||
|
Subject: Copyright Law
|
|||
|
Date: 13 Feb 86 23:19:11 GMT
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
COPYRIGHT LAW (Copyright 1986 Breslow)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I am an attorney practicing copyright law and computer law. I read a
|
|||
|
series of queries in Net.Legal about copyright law and was dismayed to
|
|||
|
find that people who had no idea what they were talking about were
|
|||
|
spreading misinformation over the network. Considering that the
|
|||
|
penalties for copyright infringement can include $50,000.00 damages per
|
|||
|
infringed work, attorneys fees, court costs, criminal fines and
|
|||
|
imprisonment, and considering that ignorance is no excuse and innocent
|
|||
|
intent is not even a recognized defense, I cringe to see the network
|
|||
|
used as a soapbox for the ill-informed. For that reason, this article
|
|||
|
will discuss copyright law and license law as they pertain to computer
|
|||
|
software.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
My goal is to enable readers to determine when they should be concerned
|
|||
|
about infringing and when they can relax about it. I also want to let
|
|||
|
programmers know how to obtain copyright for their work. I'll explain
|
|||
|
the purpose of software licenses, and discuss the effect that the
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
license has on copyright. For those of you who are programmers, I'll
|
|||
|
help you decide whether you own the programs you write on the job or
|
|||
|
your boss owns them. I will also mention trademark law and patent law
|
|||
|
briefly, in order to clarify some confusion about which is which.
|
|||
|
Incidentally, if you read this entire essay, you will be able to
|
|||
|
determine whether or not the essay is copyrighted and whether or not
|
|||
|
you can make a printout of it.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This is a long article, and you may not want to read all of it. Here
|
|||
|
is an outline to help you decide what to read and what to ignore:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
PART ONE: THE MEANING OF COPYRIGHT FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE SOFTWARE
|
|||
|
USER
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.1 A bit of history
|
|||
|
0.2 The meaning of "copyright"
|
|||
|
0.3 The meaning of "public domain"
|
|||
|
0.4 A hypothetical software purchase
|
|||
|
0.5 - 0.6 Can you use copyrighted software?
|
|||
|
0.7 Can you make a backup copy?
|
|||
|
0.8 Licenses may change the rules
|
|||
|
0.9 Can you modify the program?
|
|||
|
0.10 Can you break the copy protection scheme?
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.11 Summary
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
PART TWO: COPYRIGHT SOUNDS NEAT -- HOW DO I GET ONE? OR, HOW DO I KNOW
|
|||
|
IF THIS PROGRAM IS COPYRIGHTED?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.12.1 How do you get a copyright?
|
|||
|
0.12.2 How do you lose a copyright?
|
|||
|
0.12.3 How do you waste a stamp?
|
|||
|
0.12.4 Do you have to register?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.13 How copyright comes into existence
|
|||
|
0.14 - 0.17 The copyright notice
|
|||
|
0.18 Advantages of registration
|
|||
|
0.19 A test to see if you understand this article
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
PART THREE: WHO OWNS THE PROGRAM YOU WROTE?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.20 Introduction
|
|||
|
0.21 - 0.22 Programs written as an employee
|
|||
|
0.23 - 0.25 Programs written as a contractor
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
PART FOUR: A BRIEF WORD ABOUT LICENSES
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.26 Why a license?
|
|||
|
0.27 Is it valid?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
PART FIVE: I HAVE A NEAT IDEA. CAN I TRADEMARK IT? WHAT ABOUT A
|
|||
|
PATENT?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.28 Trademark law explained
|
|||
|
0.29 Patent law
|
|||
|
0.39 CONCLUSION: Where to find me for more info.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
PART ONE: THE MEANING OF COPYRIGHT FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE SOFTWARE
|
|||
|
USER
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.1 If you're not interested in history, you can skip this
|
|||
|
paragraph. "Modern" copyright law first came into existence in 1570,
|
|||
|
by an act of Parliament called the Statute of Anne. Like most laws, it
|
|||
|
hasn't changed much since. It was written with books and pictures in
|
|||
|
mind. Parliament, lacking the foresight to predict the success of the
|
|||
|
Intel and IBM corporations, failed to consider the issue of
|
|||
|
copyrighting computer programs. At first, courts questioned whether
|
|||
|
programs could be copyrighted at all. The problem was that judges
|
|||
|
couldn't read the programs and they figured the Copyright Law was only
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
meant to apply to things humans (which arguably includes judges) could
|
|||
|
read without the aid of a machine. I saw some mythical discussion
|
|||
|
about that in some of the net.legal drivel. Let's lay that to rest:
|
|||
|
programs are copyrightable as long as there is even a minimal amount of
|
|||
|
creativity. The issue was laid to rest with the Software Act of 1980.
|
|||
|
That Act modified the Copyright Act (which is a Federal law by the
|
|||
|
way), in such a way as to make it clear that programs are
|
|||
|
copyrightable. The few exceptions to this rule will rarely concern
|
|||
|
anyone. The next question to arise was whether a program was
|
|||
|
copyrightable if it was stored in ROM rather than on paper. The
|
|||
|
decision in the Apple v. Franklin case laid that to rest: it is.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.2 Now, what is copyright? As it is commonly understood, it is the
|
|||
|
right to make copies of something -- or to put it the other way around,
|
|||
|
it is the right to prohibit other people from making copies. This is
|
|||
|
known as an exclusive right -- the exclusive right to "reproduce," in
|
|||
|
the biological language of the Copyright Act -- and what most people
|
|||
|
don't know is that copyright involves not one, not two, but five
|
|||
|
exclusive rights. These are (1) the exclusive right to make copies,
|
|||
|
(2) the exclusive right to distribute copies to the public, (3) the
|
|||
|
exclusive right to prepare "derivative works" (I'll explain, just keep
|
|||
|
reading), (4) the exclusive right to perform the work in public (this
|
|||
|
mainly applies to plays, dances and the like, but it could apply to
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
software), and (5) the exclusive right to display the work in public
|
|||
|
(such as showing a film).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.3 Before we go any further, what is public domain? I saw some
|
|||
|
discussion on the net about public domain software being copyrighted.
|
|||
|
Nonsense. The phrase "public domain," when used correctly, means the
|
|||
|
absence of copyright protection. It means you can copy public domain
|
|||
|
software to your heart's content. It means that the author has none of
|
|||
|
the exclusive rights listed above. If someone uses the phrase "public
|
|||
|
domain" to refer to "freeware" (software which is copyrighted but is
|
|||
|
distributed without advance payment but with a request for a donation),
|
|||
|
he or she is using the term incorrectly. Public domain means no
|
|||
|
copyright -- no exclusive rights.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.4 Let's look at those exclusive rights from the viewpoint of
|
|||
|
someone who has legitimately purchased a single copy of a copyrighted
|
|||
|
computer program. For the moment, we'll have to ignore the fact that
|
|||
|
the program is supposedly licensed, because the license changes things.
|
|||
|
I'll explain that later. For now, assume you went to Fred's Diner and
|
|||
|
Software Mart and bought a dozen eggs, cat food and a word processing
|
|||
|
program. And for now, assume the program is copyrighted.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.5 What can you do with this copyrighted software? Let's start
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
with the obvious: can you use it on your powerful Timex PC? Is this a
|
|||
|
joke? No. Prior to 1980, my answer might have been No, you can't use
|
|||
|
it! And people actually pay me for advice like that! Well think: you
|
|||
|
take the floppy disk out of the zip lock baggy, insert it in drive A
|
|||
|
and load the program into RAM. What have you just done? You've made a
|
|||
|
copy in RAM --in legalese, you've reproduced the work, in violation of
|
|||
|
the copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce. (I better clarify
|
|||
|
something here: the copyright owner is the person or company whose name
|
|||
|
appears in the copyright notice on the box, or the disk or the first
|
|||
|
screen or wherever. It may be the person who wrote the program, or it
|
|||
|
may be his boss, or it may be a publishing company that bought the
|
|||
|
rights to the program. But in any case, it's not you. When you buy a
|
|||
|
copy of the program, you do not become the copyright owner. You just
|
|||
|
own one copy.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.6 Anyway, loading the program into RAM means making a copy. The
|
|||
|
Software Act of 1980 addressed this absurdity by allowing you to make a
|
|||
|
copy if the copy "is created as an essential step in the utilization of
|
|||
|
the computer program in conjunction with a machine and . . . is used in
|
|||
|
no other manner . . . ." By the way, somebody tell me what "a machine"
|
|||
|
means. If you connect 5 PC's on a network is that "a machine" or
|
|||
|
several machines? A related question is whether or not running
|
|||
|
software on a network constitutes a performance. The copyright owner
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
has the exclusive right to do that, remember?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.7 OK, so you bought this copyrighted program and you loaded it
|
|||
|
into RAM or onto a hard disk without the FBI knocking on your door.
|
|||
|
Now can you make a backup copy? YES. The Software Act also provided
|
|||
|
that you can make a backup copy, provided that it "is for archival
|
|||
|
purposes only . . . ." What you cannot do, however, is give the
|
|||
|
archive copy to your friend so that you and your pal both got the
|
|||
|
program for the price of one. That violates the copyright owner's
|
|||
|
exclusive right to distribute copies to the public. Get it? You can,
|
|||
|
on the other hand, give both your original and backup to your friend --
|
|||
|
or sell it to him, or lend it to him, as long as you don't retain a
|
|||
|
copy of the program you are selling. Although the copyright owner has
|
|||
|
the exclusive right to distribute (sell) copies of the program, that
|
|||
|
right only applies to the first sale of any particular copy. By
|
|||
|
analogy, if you buy a copyrighted book, you are free to sell your book
|
|||
|
to a friend. The copyright owner does not have the right to control
|
|||
|
resales.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.8 At this point, let me remind you that we have assumed that the
|
|||
|
program you got at the store was sold to you, not licensed to you.
|
|||
|
Licenses may change the rules.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.9 Now, you're a clever programmer, and you know the program could
|
|||
|
run faster with some modifications. You could also add graphics and an
|
|||
|
interactive mode and lots of other stuff. What does copyright law say
|
|||
|
about your plans? Well . . . several different things, actually.
|
|||
|
First, recall that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to make
|
|||
|
derivative works. A derivative work is a work based on one or more
|
|||
|
preexisting works. It's easy to recognize derivative works when you
|
|||
|
think about music or books. If a book is copyrighted, derivative works
|
|||
|
could include a screenplay, an abridged edition, or a translation into
|
|||
|
another language. Derivative works of songs might be new arrangements
|
|||
|
(like the jazz version of Love Potion Number 9), a movie soundtrack, or
|
|||
|
a written transcription, or a "long version," (such as the fifteen
|
|||
|
minute version of "Wipe Out" with an extended drum solo for dance
|
|||
|
parties). In my opinion, you are making a derivative work when you
|
|||
|
take the store-bought word processor and modify it to perform
|
|||
|
differently. The same would be true if you "translated" a COBOL
|
|||
|
program into BASIC. Those are copyright infringements -- you've horned
|
|||
|
in on the copyright owner's exclusive right to make derivative works.
|
|||
|
There is, however, some breathing room. The Software Act generously
|
|||
|
allows you to "adapt" the code if the adaptation "is created as an
|
|||
|
essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
|
|||
|
conjunction with a machine...." For example, you might have to modify
|
|||
|
the code to make it compatible with your machine.
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.10 Moving right along, let's assume your store-bought program is
|
|||
|
copy protected, and you'd really like to make a backup copy. You know
|
|||
|
this nine-year-old whiz who can crack any copy-protection scheme faster
|
|||
|
than you can rearrange a Rubix cube. Is there a copyright violation if
|
|||
|
he succeeds? There's room to argue here. When you try to figure out
|
|||
|
if something is an infringement, ask yourself, what exclusive right am
|
|||
|
I violating? In this case, not the right to make copies, and not the
|
|||
|
right to distribute copies. Public performance and display have no
|
|||
|
relevance. So the key question is whether you are making a "derivative
|
|||
|
work." My answer to that question is, "I doubt it." On the other
|
|||
|
hand, I also doubt that breaking the protection scheme was "an
|
|||
|
essential step" in using the program in conjunction with a machine. It
|
|||
|
might be a "fair use," but that will have to wait for another article.
|
|||
|
Anyone interested in stretching the limits of the "fair use" defense
|
|||
|
should read the Sony "Betamax" case.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.11 Let me summarize. Copyright means the copyright owner has the
|
|||
|
exclusive right to do certain things. Copyright infringement means you
|
|||
|
did one of those exclusive things (unless you did it within the limits
|
|||
|
of the Software Act, i.e., as an essential step . . . .).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.12 PART TWO: COPYRIGHT SOUNDS NEAT -- HOW DO I GET ONE? OR, HOW
|
|||
|
DO I KNOW IF THIS PROGRAM IS COPYRIGHTED?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.12.1 If you've written an original program, what do you have to do
|
|||
|
to get a copyright? Nothing. You already have one.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.12.2 If you've written an original program, what do you have to do
|
|||
|
to lose your copyright protection? Give copies away without the
|
|||
|
copyright notice.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.12.3 If you mail the program to yourself in a sealed envelope,
|
|||
|
what have you accomplished? You've wasted a stamp and an envelope and
|
|||
|
burdened the postal system unnecessarily.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.12.4 Do you have to register your program with the U.S. Copyright
|
|||
|
Office? No, but it's a damn good idea.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.13 Copyright protection (meaning the five exclusive rights) comes
|
|||
|
into existence the moment you "fix" your program in a "tangible
|
|||
|
medium." That means write it down, or store it on a floppy disk, or do
|
|||
|
something similar. Registration is optional. The one thing you must
|
|||
|
do, however, is protect your copyright by including a copyright notice
|
|||
|
on every copy of every program you sell, give away, lend out, etc. If
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
you don't, someone who happens across your program with no notice on it
|
|||
|
can safely assume that it is in the public domain (unless he actually
|
|||
|
knows that it is not).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.14 The copyright notice has three parts. The first can be either
|
|||
|
a c with a circle around it, or the word "copyright" or the
|
|||
|
abbreviation "Copr." The c with a circle around it is preferable,
|
|||
|
because it is recognized around the world; the others are not. That's
|
|||
|
incredibly important. Countries around the world have agreed to
|
|||
|
recognize and uphold each others' copyrights, but this world-wide
|
|||
|
protection requires the use of the c in a circle. On disk labels and
|
|||
|
program packaging, use the encircled c. Unfortunately, computers don't
|
|||
|
draw small circles well, so programmers have resorted to a c in
|
|||
|
parentheses: (c). Too bad. That has no legal meaning. When you put
|
|||
|
your notice in the code and on the screen, use "Copyright" or "Copr."
|
|||
|
if you can't make a circle.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.15 The second part of the notice is the "year of first publication
|
|||
|
of the work." "Publication" doesn't mean distribution by Osborne
|
|||
|
Publishing Co. It means distribution of copies of the program to the
|
|||
|
public "by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or
|
|||
|
lending." So when you start handing out or selling copies of your
|
|||
|
precious code, you are publishing. Publication also takes place when
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
you merely OFFER to distribute copies to a group for further
|
|||
|
distribution. Your notice must include the year that you first did so.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.16 The third part of the notice is the name of the owner of the
|
|||
|
copyright. Hopefully, that's you, in which case your last name will
|
|||
|
do. If your company owns the program -- a legal issue which I will
|
|||
|
address later in this article --the company name is appropriate.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.17 Where do you put the notice? The general idea is to put it
|
|||
|
where people are likely to see it. Specifically, if you're
|
|||
|
distributing a human-readable code listing, put it on the first page in
|
|||
|
the first few lines of code, and hard code it so that it appears on the
|
|||
|
title screen, or at sign-off, or continuously. If you're distributing
|
|||
|
machine-readable versions only, hard code it. As an extra precaution,
|
|||
|
you should also place the notice on the gummed disk label or in some
|
|||
|
other fashion permanently attached to the storage medium.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.18 Now, why register the program? If no one ever rips off your
|
|||
|
program, you won't care much about registration. If someone does rip
|
|||
|
it off, you'll kick yourself for not having registered it. The reason
|
|||
|
is that if the program is registered before the infringement takes
|
|||
|
place, you can recover some big bucks from the infringer, called
|
|||
|
statutory damages, and the court can order the infringer to pay your
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
attorneys fees. Registration only costs $10.00, and it's easy to do
|
|||
|
yourself. The only potential disadvantage is the requirement that you
|
|||
|
deposit the first and last 25 pages of your source code, which can be
|
|||
|
inspected (but not copied) by members of the public.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.19 Now, someone tell me this: is this article copyrighted? Can
|
|||
|
you print it?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.20 PART THREE: WHO OWNS THE PROGRAM YOU WROTE?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The starting point of this analysis is that if you wrote the program,
|
|||
|
you are the author, and copyright belongs to the author. HOWEVER, that
|
|||
|
can change instantly. There are two common ways for your ownership to
|
|||
|
shift to someone else: first, your program might be a "work for hire."
|
|||
|
Second, you might sell or assign your "rights" in the program, which
|
|||
|
for our purposes means the copyright.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.21 Most of the programs which you write at work, if not all of
|
|||
|
them, belong to your employer. That's because a program prepared by an
|
|||
|
employee within the scope of his or her employment is a "work for
|
|||
|
hire," and the employer is considered the "author." This is more or
|
|||
|
less automatic if you are an employee --no written agreement is
|
|||
|
necessary to make your employer the copyright owner. By contrast, if
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
you can convince your employer to let you be the copyright owner, you
|
|||
|
must have that agreement in writing.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.22 By the way, before you give up hope of owning the copyright to
|
|||
|
the program you wrote at work, figure out if you are really an
|
|||
|
employee. That is actually a complex legal question, but I can tell
|
|||
|
you now that just because your boss says you are an employee doesn't
|
|||
|
mean that it's so. And remember that if you created the program
|
|||
|
outside the "scope" of your job, the program is not a "work for hire."
|
|||
|
Finally, in California and probably elsewhere, the state labor law
|
|||
|
provides that employees own products they create on their own time,
|
|||
|
using their own tools and materials. Employment contracts which
|
|||
|
attempt to make the employer the owner of those off-the-job
|
|||
|
"inventions" are void, at least in sunny California.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.23 Wait a minute: I'm an independent contractor to Company X, not
|
|||
|
an employee. I come and go as I please, get paid by the hour with no
|
|||
|
tax withheld, and was retained to complete a specific project. I
|
|||
|
frequently work at home with my own equipment. Is the program I'm
|
|||
|
writing a "work for hire," owned by the Company? Maybe, maybe not. In
|
|||
|
California, this area is full of landmines for employers, and gold for
|
|||
|
contractors.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.24 A contractor's program is not a "work for hire," and is not
|
|||
|
owned by the company, unless (1) there is a written agreement between
|
|||
|
the company and the contractor which says that it is, and (2) the work
|
|||
|
is a "commissioned work." A "commissioned work" is one of the
|
|||
|
following: (a) a contribution to a "collective work," (b) an
|
|||
|
audiovisual work (like a movie, and maybe like a video game), (c) a
|
|||
|
translation, (d) a compilation, (e) an instructional text, (f) a test
|
|||
|
or answer to a test, or (g) an atlas. I know you must be tired of
|
|||
|
definitions, but this is what the real legal world is made of. An
|
|||
|
example of a collective work is a book of poetry, with poems
|
|||
|
contributed by various authors. A piece of code which is incorporated
|
|||
|
into a large program isn't a contribution to a collective work, but a
|
|||
|
stand-alone program which is packaged and sold with other stand-alone
|
|||
|
programs could be.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.25 So where are we? If you are a contract programmer, not an
|
|||
|
employee, and your program is a "commissioned work," and you have a
|
|||
|
written agreement that says that the program is a "work for hire" owned
|
|||
|
by the greedy company, who owns the program? That's right, the
|
|||
|
company. But guess what? In California and elsewhere the company just
|
|||
|
became your employer! This means that the company must now provide
|
|||
|
worker's compensation benefits for you AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.26 PART FOUR: A BRIEF WORD ABOUT LICENSES.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When you get software at the local five and dime, the manufacturer
|
|||
|
claims that you have a license to use that copy of the program. The
|
|||
|
reason for this is that the manufacturer wants to place more
|
|||
|
restrictions on your use of the program than copyright law places. For
|
|||
|
example, licenses typically say you can only use the program on a
|
|||
|
single designated CPU. Nothing in the copyright law says that. Some
|
|||
|
licenses say you cannot make an archive copy. The copyright law says
|
|||
|
you can, remember? But if the license is a valid license, now you
|
|||
|
can't. You can sell or give away your copy of a program if you
|
|||
|
purchased it, right? That's permitted by copyright law, but the
|
|||
|
license may prohibit it. The more restrictive terms of the license
|
|||
|
will apply instead of the more liberal copyright rules.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.27 Is the license valid? This is hotly debated among lawyers.
|
|||
|
(What isn't? We'll argue about the time of day.) A few states have
|
|||
|
passed or will soon pass laws declaring that they are valid. A few
|
|||
|
will go the other way. Federal legislation is unlikely. My argument
|
|||
|
is that at the consumer level, the license is not binding because there
|
|||
|
is no true negotiation (unless a state law says it is binding), but hey
|
|||
|
that's just an argument and I'm not saying that that's the law. In any
|
|||
|
case, I think businesses which buy software will be treated differently
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
in court than consumers. Businesses should read those licenses and
|
|||
|
negotiate with the manufacturer if the terms are unacceptable.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.28 FINALLY, PART FIVE: I HAVE A NEAT IDEA. CAN I TRADEMARK IT?
|
|||
|
WHAT ABOUT PATENT?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Sorry, no luck. Trademark law protects names: names of products and
|
|||
|
names of services. (Note that I did not say names of companies.
|
|||
|
Company names are not trademarkable.) If you buy a program that has a
|
|||
|
trademarked name, all that means is that you can't sell your own
|
|||
|
similar program under the same name. It has nothing to do with copying
|
|||
|
the program.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.29 Patent law can apply to computer programs, but it seldom does.
|
|||
|
The main reasons it seldom applies are practical: the patent process is
|
|||
|
too slow and too expensive to do much good in the software world.
|
|||
|
There are also considerable legal hurdles to overcome in order to
|
|||
|
obtain a patent. If, by chance, a program is patented, the patent
|
|||
|
owner has the exclusive right to make, use or sell it for 17 years.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0.30 CONCLUSION: I know this is a long article, but believe it or
|
|||
|
not I just scratched the surface. Hopefully, you'll find this
|
|||
|
information useful, and you'll stop passing along myths about copyright
|
|||
|
[more]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
law. If anyone needs more information, I can be reached at (415) 932-
|
|||
|
4828, or by mail at 1225 Alpine Road, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA
|
|||
|
94596.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Thank you.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
JORDAN J. BRESLOW
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
B4:TEXT>
|