Re: Re: Attribution is not required in public domain materials

Technically, patents do NOT generally protect ideas. In the U.S., the patent statute states that:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Thus, to be patentable, it must be a useful "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" or an "improvement" thereof. An "idea" is much more general, and must fall into this list to be patentable.

-Bodi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Tabor" <ket354[_at_]yahoo.com>
To: "CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property" <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:00 PM
Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: Attribution is not required in public domain materials

> "OOH, OOH, I know this one!" He said, hand stretched
> to the sky from the school desk teetering on two legs.
>
> "3. other"
>
> Elaboration: Patents cover new, useful, non-obvious
> ideas. All other ideas are deemed not worthy of
> protection in our current legal framework.
>
> Do I get a gold star today!
>
> keith
>
> [There was a Mr. Carter/Horshack joke there, but I
> didn't want to ruffle any screen writer feathers.]
>
> --- sstouden[_at_]thelinks.com wrote:
> >
> > The reason that ideas are not protected is because?
> > 1. big corporations what the ideas
> > 2. the ideas are humans and human issue is not
> > subject to copyright
> > 3. other
> > sterling
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Robert F. Bodi
> > <lawlists[_at_]bodi.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I fail to see how a requirement to attribute a
> > work to its author violates
> > > > anybody's free speech, any more than the
> > requirement that one identify
> > > > oneself to a police officer does. You take the
> > right of free speech too far
> > > > if you give others the right to plagerize. And
> > note that plagiarism does
> > > > NOT require an existing copyright. One can
> > plagerize from the public
> > > > domain.
> > >
> > > You are wandering into a totally different
> > territory when you
> > > try to make an analogy between requirement of
> > attribution and
> > > requirement to reveal one's name to a police
> > officer. We have
> > > laws on libel, slander, forgery, and perjury.
> > None of them has
> > > any affect on the freedoms of speech and press
> > because they
> > > are very limited in term of scope and time and
> > focus on the
> > > consequences of the deceitful actions, not the
> > deceitful actions
> > > itself.
> > >
> > > Later in your post, you said that ideas are not
> > protected and
> > > therefore, they do not require attribution. But,
> > plagiarism
> > > is not limited to fixed copyrightable expressions
> > but also
> > > extend to all ideas. In a way, the free speech
> > allows one
> > > to plagiarize by copying ides from other sources
> > without
> > > attribution.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If they take a substantial amount of the text,
> > then YES. Copyright has
> > > > nothing at all to do with it. The issue is that
> > one should recognize the
> > > > sources of one's ideas when those sources are
> > known. That not only is fair
> > > > and ethical, but it BROADENS the practice of
> > free speech because it allows
> > > > others to investigate further. The advancement
> > of knowledge is not
> > > > furthered by hiding the sources of one's works.
> > Quite the opposite is true.
> > > > By listing sources, one helps others check and
> > improve one's works.
> > >
> > > You are mixing ethics with legality. Is copyright
> > infringement
> > > the same as stealing?
> > >
> > >
> > > > The issue isn't necessarily one of lawsuits.
> > The concept does not need to
> > > > be legally enforced, but it should be ethically
> > enforced. For example,
> > > > historians that have "borrowed" from others
> > without attribution and
> > > > subsequently have been outed aren't necessarily
> > sued, but their works become
> > > > suspect, as well they should. Thus, there is
> > peer pressure to attribute the
> > > > works of others. Self-policing can work. The
> > problem is that you appear to
> > > > be saying that it is PROPER to not attribute.
> > That I cannot agree with. A
> > > > student who turns in a paper copied from a
> > Shakespeare play should get a
> > > > failing grade if proper attribution is not
> > given. That is the proper
> > > > response.
> > >
> > > Again, you are mixing ethics with legality. Note
> > that I said
> > > in other post that attribution is nice but it
> > should be always
> > > optional, meaning that not providing attribution
> > should not
> > > be made illegal.
> > >
> > >
> > > > "Ideas" are not protected. I serously doubt
> > that she copied, verbatin or
> > > > even closely, the works of an identifiable other
> > person. Hence, no
> > > > attribution is necessary. You are distorting
> > the issue of when attribution
> > > > is needed.
> > >
> > > The following are also not protected:
> > >
> > > 1. Unfixed expressions.
> > >
> > > 2. Fixed uncopyrightable expressions.
> > >
> > > 3. Fixed copyrightable expressions that
> > cannot be
> > > copyrighted due to Merger Doctrine.
> > >
> > > 4. Fixed copyrightable expressions whose
> > copyrights have expired.
> > >
> > > By your logic, if I copy any from category #4, I
> > do not need to
> > > provide attribution because they are not
> > protected. This contradicts
> > > your previous statement saying that copying a
> > large portion of a
> > > public domain material must have a proper
> > attribution.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > We must not let authors gain perpetual
> > copyright through the
> > > > > guise of trademark.
> > > >
> > > > Nobody suggested this be done.
> > >
> > > Your post seems to say otherwise.
> > >
> > >
> > > Joseph Pietro Riolo
> > > <riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>
> > > http://www.boycottcopyright.com
> > >
> > > Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all
> > knowledge of 1923
> > > in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their
> > copyright
> > > owners' prisons: 5,681
> > >
> > > Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
> > in this
> > > post in the public domain.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> #############################################################
> > > This message is sent to you because you are
> > subscribed to
> > > the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> > > To unsubscribe, E-mail to:
> > <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> > > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to
> > <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> > > To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to
> > <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> > > To postpone your subscription, E-mail to
> > <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> > > Send administrative queries to
> > <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
> > >
> > > Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
> > <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> #############################################################
> > This message is sent to you because you are
> > subscribed to
> > the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> > To unsubscribe, E-mail to:
> > <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to
> > <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> > To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to
> > <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> > To postpone your subscription, E-mail to
> > <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> > Send administrative queries to
> > <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
> >
> > Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
> <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
<https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>
Received on Wed Jun 18 2003 - 20:02:12 GMT