On 8/28/98, John Allison <allisonj[_at_]mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> Also, the "fonts" case you referred to is quite important. Fonts
> themselves have been treated for a long time as not being copyrightable
> because of their functionality, or because of merger of the expression
> with the idea. However, in that case (the name of which I do not
> immediately recall), the court held that the *program* creating the
> fonts was indeed copyrightable subject matter. Irrespective of the
> logic of this distinction, if this case holds up, the practical effect
> would seem to be that fonts are now copyrightable subject matter.
How could the copyrightability of the font generator render the fonts copyrightable? It seems to me that Microsoft Word is an example of a copyrightable work. I create documents using Word all of the time. That doesn't give Microsoft a copyright in my writings. And if I type in contact listings from the pages of a phone book, the fact that I use a copyightable word processor doesn't render the listing copyrightable.
This e-mail communication should not be interpreted as legal advice or a legal opinion. The transmission of this e-mail communication does not create an attorney-client relationship between me and you. Do not act or rely upon law-related information in this communication without seeking the advice of an attorney. Finally, nothing in this message should be interpreted as a "digital signature" or "electronic signature" that can create binding commercial transactions. Received on Sat Aug 29 1998 - 21:36:11 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:31 GMT