Re: lawsuit on copying ideas

On Sat, Mar 25, 2000, Steven D. Jamar <sjamar[_at_]law.howard.edu> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Timothy Phillips <hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Steven D. Jamar <sjamar[_at_]law.howard.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > I hope no one trusts Mr. Riolo's interpretation and characterization
> > > of US copyright law. What he says is not correct. It is wrong. It
> > > is wrong in ways that may not seem to matter to him, but do matter
> > > to lawyers and the courts.
> >
> > Even Mr. Jamar recognizes that the line between ideas and expression
> > is not always clear. In light of that, dogmatic absolute assertions
> > that "ideas are not copyrightable" are inconsistent.
>
> I enjoy philosophy and discussions about semantics as much as, and
> maybe even more than the next person, but I thought we were discussing
> the use of the term "idea" in US copyright law. Ideas are not
> protectible in copyright no matter how much we wish to twist and bend
> the law to our personal desires. But the line between what is an
> expression and what is an idea is of course fuzzy -- but it is wrong
> to say that ideas are protected by copyright. Just because there are
> non-legal meanings to the word "idea" does not make ideas, as the term
> is used in the law, protectible.
>
> This is a law and policy discussion list, not a philosophy or linguistic
> list -- and when someone wants to use a legal term of art in a non-formal
> sense, he or she should be explicit about it -- as Mr. Phillips did in
> his post.
>
> We can also play this same game with facts - especially historical
> facts. But that is another problem altogether.

Can I contribute my two pence worth? I hope this counts as law not philosophy or semantics. I'm not sure the boundaries are any easier to draw than those between idea and expression ...

In the UK, we have no express exclusion of copyright in ideas. No section 102(b). But such an exclusion is inherent in the proposition that copyright protects original works that it is concerned with expression. However, as Jacob J said in Ibcos Computers Ltd v Poole [1994] FSR 275:    It is of course clear that copyright cannot protect any sort of    general principle, such as the principle of drawing a hand to show    how to vote, but it can protect a detailed literary or artistic    expression. ... The true position is that where an "idea" is    sufficiently general, then even if an original work embodies it,    the mere taking of that idea will not infringe. But if the "idea"    is detailed, then there may be an infringement. It is a question    of degree.

This probably isn't much different from saying "Nobody has been able to fix that boundary, and nobody ever can", and it probably comes down to semantics (what do you mean by idea? when does an idea, by elaboration and embroidery, become someone's original work?): but characterise it as semantics or not, it's the fundamental question in copyright law.

Peter Groves
<peter.groves[_at_]virgin.net> Received on Wed Mar 29 2000 - 00:51:08 GMT