Re: Was Judge Hand good for (c)-law?

Harold Federow <hfederow[_at_]u.washington.edu> writes:
>
> Prior art...is a patent term. Judge Hand is right on target as to the
> law. At least under current understanding of the copyright law. And,
> I think, he is right on as a matter of policy as well."

My whole point is that in the case of EXACT duplication of a work in the public domain, the copyright should be held to be invalid, JUST AS A PATENT WOULD BE. This is one situation where copyright law should be more like patent law. (A shorter term is another. Use of the useful term 'prior art' where appropriate is another.) Besides, would any judge sincerely believe that someone had re-invented an exact duplicate of Keats' poem without any prior awareness of Keats'? The standard of originality should be illustrated with credible examples.

And Fisher v. Dillingham remains wrongly decided.

Timothy Phillips
<phillips[_at_]mail.nhn.ou.edu> Received on Thu Mar 26 1998 - 19:35:26 GMT