Re: copyright of pleadings

At 11:16 AM 4/23/96, Tim Perrin wrote (among other things):
>
> The function of copyright is to encourage creative expression by
> providing an economic incentive.

I beg to differ. In principle, what copyright encourages, at least in the US, is the progress of knowledge ("science" in 18th century terminology). It does so through the protection of "original" works, that is to say, works that are not themselves copies of other things. In theory, creativity has nothing to do with it so long as the writing (etc.) is "original" to the author. Creativity is a metaphysical trap that courts have fallen into in figuring out what "originality" means, since with respect to factual matters, compilations and so on, the only original aspect of the work has to do with the organizing principle behind it. It becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between "originality" in presenting a compilation--looking at some organizing algorithm--and "novelty" as understood in patent parlance. Alphabetizing is deemed to be an algorithm omnipresent in the sky, as it were, so you can't win points for drawing up lists that way (unless, I suppose, you apply it to something that people wouldn't think of alphabetizing--like what?).

In any event, something doesn't have to be "creative" to be "original."

• Vance R. Koven phone: (617) 482-3852 *
• Attorney at Law fax: (617) 482-4972 *
• 20 Park Plaza Ste 520 net: vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com *
• Boston, MA 02116 *

  ---