Re: copyrighting of numbers

On 5/20/98, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 May 1998, Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> > An interesting idea. So on this theory, one could pass a database bill
> > that protected *only* uncopyrightable databases, but not one that
> > protected both copyrightable and uncopyrightable databases. Right?
>
> I don't think so. I think you'd find that the copyright act protected
> copyrightable aspects, and the pure database act would protect pure
> database aspects.
>

OK, but that's not HR 2652. 2652 provides database protection to both copyrightable *and* uncopyrightable aspects of existing databases.

> This is just another recast of the useful article doctrine. The fact
> that an article is useful does not mean that it can't embody
> copyrightable material -- only that the aspects that are inherently
> utilitarian are not protected by copyright. They could, however, be
> protected by patent, for example.
>

Are there *any* constitutional limits to the ability of Congress to pass new IP laws, then? Suppose Congress said copyright exists for a limited time (life + 50 years). Once copyright expires, we will create a new IP right that provides perpetual protection. But it isn't copyright, so it doesn't run afoul of the Copyright Clause. Constitutional?

Mark Lemley
<mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> Received on Thu May 21 1998 - 15:21:44 GMT