On 6/18/98, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> Nonetheless, in addition to the interpretation difficulties here, I also
> think a court would be bothered by an argument that permitted updates to
> continuously make old information extendable. In other words, if
> somebody added a wholly new segment to the database, that would be one
> thing, but protecting information when all that was done was to verify
> its accuracy or make minor updates would be troublesome.
After I created and sent this message I decided to take a look at the House Committee Report (thanks to Laurel Jamtgaard who mentioned it in her message). Language in the report make me dubious about my own comments. With respect to the 15-year term the report says:
"This language means that new investments in an existing collection, if they are substantial enough to be worthy of protection, will themselves be able to be protected, ensuring that producers have the incentive to make such investments in expanding and refreshing their collections. At the same time, however, protection will not be perpetual; the substantial investment that is protected under the Act cannot be protected for more than fifteen years. By focusing on that investment that made the particular portion of the collection that has been extracted or used eligible for protection, the provision avoids providing ongoing protection to the entire collection every time there is an additional substantial investment made in its scope or maintenance."
That language isn't too bad, but there is other language in the report when it addresses the idea of maintenance in the main misappropriation provision that is more troubling:
"To be eligible for protection, the collection of information must be gathered, organized, or maintained through the investment of substantial monetary or other resources. The maintenance that is referred to may include updating or ongoing verification of the information collected. In order to qualify, the investment must be substantial, whether it consists of money, time, or effort."
Thus, if a court were to look for guidance in interpreting this bill, should it become law in its present form, updating and verification appear to qualify for protection provided there was a substantial expenditure of something in that updating or verification.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:30 GMT