Factual databases should be protected primarily by contract, as they have been for decades, and not by extending the constitutional reach of copyright. The value is in the interaction between the user and the organized facts (search ability, relevance, presentation, speed, annotation etc.), not in the purely ministerial and unoriginal manner of inputting the data. West is a case in point. Their search engine is a superior product, which adds substantial value to their 'factual compilation.' That what I think I am paying for . . . speed and accuracy, NOT access. I tried Versuslaw and some others, and they just are not as robust or (maybe?) as accurate as West.
On first read, West's brief in the Hyperlaw case is unpersuasive to me. I see little distinction between a page number in a case book and a page number in a phone book or any other book. If Hyperlaw was presenting names and addresses, and wanted to direct the user to each page in the Yellow Pages where that person's name could be found, it is just beyond me how such a reference infringes a copyright in the compilation.
I'm not a phd or anything, but I don't think we need a new "database protection" act, and if one were enacted, I would question Congress' power under the Copyright Clause to extend copyright protection to pure facts, which as someone on this list (whose name escapes me) pointed out, was not the original intent of our Founding Fathers.
These are personal opinions, not those of my clients.
Mike Oliver
Bowie & Jensen, LLC
http://www.bowie-jensen.com/
<oliver[_at_]bowie-jensen.com>
Received on Thu Oct 09 1997 - 12:15:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:27 GMT