Re: [Patents] Copyright on ideas, procedures, methods of operation ormathematical concepts

["Christian Beauprez" <beauprez@beauprez.fsnet.co.uk>]

Hi guys,

I know what you mean it is that awful phrase "per se" again.

However we can see why it is necessary in copyright. For example I may not
copy the exact expression of a work but instead lift ideas one after the
other off another author's work. In cases like this substancial lifting of
ideas that are merely rephrased could constitiute an infringement. This is
necessary otherwise we could just rephrase line by line someone else's work.
Like I say it's not an exact science but it's better than ridiculously
over-broad definitions.

To give another example if someone writes and copyrights a program, and I go
through their code line by line, merely altering the superficial appearance,
but actually retaining the exact functionality of their code then that could
be by any stretch of the imagination infringement. The key here is
"substantive"

In the case of copyright it is interesting to see how "per se" has been
limited as opposed to streched beyond it's mandate as we see in patent law.

Kindest Regards,

Chris

> ROTFLMAO
>
> Good one!
>
>
> Seth
>
> João Miguel Neves wrote:
> >
> > Just another item to the list of why the "as such" interpretation is
> > stupid. The article 2 of the WIPO 1996 Copyright Treaty as this text in
> > article 2:
> >
> > Scope of Copyright Protection
> >
> > Copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas,
> > procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such.
> >
> > Can we reinterpret the "as such" to allow copyright of "ideas,
> > procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts"? ;)
> >
> > --