copyright of science

On 4/24/98, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> The level of protection to which each is entitled depends on the work,
> not upon a far-too-generalized notion that all works of history should
> be treated as "literature rather than science."

Greetings!

I have a question that I've not been able to satisfactorily answer:

What part of science besides the published article (electronic or paper) or book describing a scientific study is copyrightable? Data are facts; their arrangement into tables or charts may be expressions of the data--but computer programs now exist to scan then reconstruct data from published sources so that those facts can be re-expressed and re-entered into the community for ongoing debate. While scientists aims for truth--science--and bumps up against the facts called passive restraints that become its benchmarks, the so-called "objective" interpretation of scientific facts has largely been a myth held fast by those who never have done scientific inquiry or written about it.

Does case law elaborate beyond "expression in a fixed form" what part of science is copyrightable?

Cynthia B. Chapman, ELS
Authors & Editors
2025 NW Monroe Avenue
Corvallis, OR 97330
541-757-0713 (office phone or fax)
541-757-7620 (home)
cbccin[_at_]proaxis.com
Unpublished work Copyright 1998 Cynthia B. Chapman, ELS. Received on Tue Apr 28 1998 - 19:04:38 GMT