At 5:33 PM 2/28/96, Karjala, Dennis wrote:
>
> I have just read the full opinion in Compaq Computer Corp.
> v. Procom Technology, Inc., 908 F. Supp. 1409 (S.D. Tex. 1995).
> I wonder whether participants in this list, especially those who
> believe that Feist rules out "thin" (or "sweat") copyrights,
> think that this decision is compatible with Feist.
>
> Compaq sold hard disk drives for use in its computers,
> together with software that made use of "threshold values" for
> five parameters related to determining when the hard disk was in
> danger of failing. These threshold values--each a number--were
> stored on the hard drive....
>
> The court concluded that these threshold numbers determined
> by Compaq were copyright protected. The reason was the
> intellectual creativity in determining the appropriate values...
>
> If this analysis is correct, what we have here is a "thin"
> copyright in specific numbers, which has raised so much objection
> on this list. The numbers themselves are not protected; others
> are simply prohibited from copying those numbers from Compaq's
> disk files. Infringement hinges on the METHOD by which defendant
> determines its threshold values. If the result in this case is
> acceptable on the basis of the intellectual input involved in
> determining the threshold numbers (again putting to the side
> whether functionality concerns shouldn't have denied the
> copyright in any event), why not--as a policy matter--an equally
> thin copyright for "sweat" numbers or facts (or public domain
> materials in electronic form) that are costly to produce but easy
> to copy?
Why indeed. Did the court consider the provision denying copyright to "short phrases"?
Should someone collect a royalty every time someone quotes "Dirty Harry"'s "make my day"?
Remember the joke about the prisoners and the numerically codified jokes? Is "39" copyright? (apologies for my bad timing, I'm no comedian).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:19 GMT