Re: chess moves

On 01 May 2000, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> It is important to distinguish two rationales for limiting
> copyright protection. The first principle is that "facts" are not
> copyrightable because they are not original. The second principle
> is that "ideas" are not copyrightable, EVEN IF THEY ARE ORIGINAL,
> because it would impose too great a cost on the public welfare if
> ideas could be subject to copyright protection. This is the same
> value that informs the First Amendment; ideas must be free for
> everyone to use. [The same principle underlies the denial of
> copyright to the functional aspects useful articles.]
>
> Ideas become intellectual property only in two circumstances:
> ideas that are kept secret can be trade secrets, but only so long
> as they are unknown to and not reasonably ascertainable by lawful
> means by competitors; and ideas (reduced to practice) that are
> useful, novel and non-obvious may be patented. The point is that
> ideas may be freely copied (even if they are original), unless
> they are secret and one has promised not to copy them (or has used
> improper means to obtain access to them); or unless they meet the
> much more rigorous standards of patent law.
>
> So even if the moves in a chess game are original, the moves
> are not copyrightable, because to do so would be to give the first
> person to make the move the right to prevent others from copying
> the move. That would defeat the whole purpose of the game, which
> is to pit contestants in a game of strategy. If certain moves
> permitted by the rules of the game are off limits because they are
> copyrighted, it certainly would restrict the ability of people to
> play the game.

Individual words cannot be copyrighted, but when they are assembled in a particular order, they may become a novel or a poem, and then they are protected by copyright.

Individual digits (0 to 9) have been ruled to not be protected even if many of them are assembled into a very long number. I recall that someone raised this issue with a prime number that was some 300+ digits long.

I suspect that a single move is like a word or digit, and not protectable. The other problem that I see is that any move in chess is effective only within the context of what an opponent has done previously in the same game.

I suspect that the Courts would use the analysis of numerals, and not protect a combination of many moves, in the same way that they deny protection to numbers. I would not bet that 100% of the judges at any level would reach that conclusion.

I disagree with the rationale that chess moves are not protectable because to do so would inhibit play of the game. Under this logic, music would not be protected because to do so might inhibit composers from creating new works.

Tom Workman
<tworkman[_at_]erols.com> Received on Tue May 09 2000 - 18:57:50 GMT