Re: First amendment, encryption, fonts (Was: Shrinkwrap Licenses - Reply re UCC2b)

On 9/1/98, John Allison <allisonj[_at_]mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> On 8/29/98, Cem Kaner <kaner[_at_]kaner.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I wasn't referring to your use of the fonts to create your own work,
> as you do when you write in MS Word. I was referring to a a
> creator/provider of fonts. If the software necessary to make a
> particular font work on your printer is copyrightable, doesn't that give
> the software owner a de facto ability (although not an actual copyright)
> to prevent other font creators/providers from making the same fonts from
> purveying those fonts in their software. Of course, the end user can
> make whatever use of the fonts he wants, but he can't create software
> that will create those fonts and then sell or license it? I was really
> referring to practical effect, not to legal status, but didn't make it
> clear. Do you think that my analysis is still out in left field?

Unless there is a patentable invention in the process to generate a font through the software, I don't see why another person couldn't create software to generate the same font. The only thing he or she can't do is copy the original program code -- but if the results can be achieved through different code, then I don't see any impediment.

It also seems to me that much of the specification of the font itself -- the data used to draw each symbol -- may be unprotectable as a merger of expression and idea. (There are a limited number of ways to tell the computer to draw this line, etc.)

Daniel J. Schaeffer
<daniel_schaeffer[_at_]kirkland.com> Received on Tue Sep 01 1998 - 13:54:45 GMT