re: Sweat Copyrights

>At 3:19 PM 3/5/96 -0600, Buford Terrell wrote:
>>
>> If the idea of failure alert settings cannot be copyrighted, then
>> why can the operative facts, the settings themselves, be copyrighted?
>> If anything, the whole scheme looks like a process which should have
>> been patented.
>>
>> An analogy can be drawn to the Human Genome activity. No one, as
>> far as I know, has tried to copyright the factual sequences of
>> ACGH...., but plasmids containing those sequences have been patented.
>
> I agree that the decision is a bad one, but the distinction that the
> Court would offer is that the measured parameters were selected and
> the threshold values were subjectively assigned by the "copyright"
> holder, rather than externally ordained.
>
> John Noble
> <jnoble[_at_]dgs.dgsys.com>

It still sounds more patent-like to me.

  --buford

Buford Terrell
<terrell[_at_]gateway.stcl.edu> Received on Sun Mar 10 1996 - 23:23:08 GMT