Re: Database Protection Paper

Lynn Levine <lynnlevine[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> As any producer of databases can tell you, we have always operated on
> the belief that these products were protected by legislation,
> specifically copyright legislation. However, since the Feist decision,
> a significant number of us are finding that trickle-down decisions have
> diluted copyright protection (which was specifically intended by
> Congress) of factual compilations (and I am not talking about telephone
> book white pages) to the point that such protections are virtually
> nonexistent. The database protection legislation we propose is simply
> a means of closing a widening gap in the law.

Feist set the record straight: copyright, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, protects intellectual property only, ie, intellectual creativity and not commercial investment, to the end of promoting "the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

There is no "gap" to close in these circumstances within the framework of Intellectual Property law. The interest asserted by supporters of the suis generis right is commercial investment, not intellectual investment. If a problem really does exist, solutions should be sought in other realms, such as unfair competition- not by creating a new intellectual property right which might arguably be found to be unconstitutional.

The above is my own opinion, and not that of my employer.

Brian Negin, Adv.
<negin[_at_]cbs.gov.il> Received on Wed Oct 08 1997 - 14:59:40 GMT