Re: reverse engineering a color?

Greg S. MacGowan <greg.macgowan[_at_]law.uc.edu> wrote:
>
> You're suggesting that we make colors copyrightable. Probably not a good
> idea. (-:

How about trade secret law? Suppose there were an express license on the exterior of the paint can stating that the particular mixture was a trade secret and opening the can was the user's manifestation of acceptance of the license to use, but not analyze, the paint...?

Gerry Bluhm
gbluhm[_at_]cfa.harvard.edu

> On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, David Dailey wrote:
> >
> > The recent discussion on this list of reverse engineering software and
> > a visit to a local hardware store triggered the following thoughts:
> >
> > The hardware store, part of a regional chain, has a wonderful gadget:
> > a "color-analyzer." The customer brings in a sample of the paint they
> > want to match, the machine takes a picture, and then
> > "reverse-engineers" the mixing of pigments to produce a match. In my
> > case, I had some paint from manufacturer A, but the store only sold
> > paint by manufacturer B. Given the status of color as potentially
> > trademarkable entity (see Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. Inc.,
> > in which the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a claim of trademark
> > infringement on a color), I was wondering if this wonderful device
> > might indeed be naughty.
> >
> > It is not too different, it seems, from the protection of a small set
> > of parameters in software: a paint color can be seen as an n-tuple
> > consisting of ratios of n various primary pigments, though perhaps the
> > set of basic primaries varies from company to company. I gather that
> > with parameters in software, some are arguing for copyright status. If
> > so, why not for colors too? and would the proposed reverse engineering
> > statututes extend to parameter sets? Just musing a bit...
> >
> > David Dailey (ddailey[_at_]williams.edu)
Received on Mon Oct 28 1996 - 14:28:39 GMT