Re: Veeck vs. SBCCI (US 5th Circuit Ct Appeals)

On Monday, February 19, 2001 4:51 PM, John Noble wrote:

> But let's play with the merger doctrine,
> which seems to be our only doctrinal hook. What if Nimmer on Copyright is
> the required text for a copyright course. Just to tighten the analogy,
> let's make it a state university law school, and a course required for
> graduation. To paraphrase your argument: The expression IS the required
> reading. The expression merges with the idea of the reading required to
> graduate from law school, because the EXACT language of Nimmer on
Copyright
> is the only way to express what the student is required to read. Is that
> reason enough to deny copyright protection to Nimmer on Copyright?

    There is, perhaps, a different doctrinal hook: once enacted into law, the code becomes an uncopyrightable fact. Laws, unlike most copyrightable literary works, do more than merely convey information, but rather regulate human conduct. Moreover, every word of the law has significance in performing this regulatory function. So, enacted laws are tantamount to mathematical or physical laws -- i.e., uncopyrightable facts. This distinguishes the above hypothetical about using Nimmer on Copyright as a required text, because the text still merely conveys information. So, once the Code became law, it should have been deemed an unprotected fact.

Robert Rotstein
Adjunct Prof. of Law
Loyola Law School Received on Fri Feb 23 2001 - 05:52:49 GMT