On Tue, 02 Dec 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> The sad thing is that Adobe v. SSI was judged
> (http://web.archive.org/web/20010303011442/http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/adobe.html)
> other way. How is it possible is beyond my understanding. For
> comments see http://jeff.cs.mcgill.ca/~luc/kinch.html .
The key to this decision is:
A computer program is defined by the Copyright Act as "a set of
statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a
computer to bring about a certain result." 17 U.S.C. §101.
Computer programs are protectable literary works. 17 U.S.C.
§102(a); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d
1240, 1247-48 (3rd Cir. 1983). Typeface designs are not
copyrightable. Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, 579 F.2d 294, 298 (4th Cir.
1978). A computer program is not rendered unprotectable merely
because its output is not protectable. See Apple Computer, Inc. v.
Formula Int'l, Inc., 562 F.Supp. 775, 781-2 (C.D. Cal. 1983);
aff'd, 725 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1984). Thus, the fact that a
computer program produces unprotectable typefaces does not make
the computer program itself unprotectable.
In effect, the computer program itself (eg, the TrueType part is
protected) but the output of the program is not.
I personally won't be too terribly surprised if there is some movement
to adjust the Eltra ruling to more specifically define what is
copyrightable and what is not.
Don Armstrong
--
Any excuse will serve a tyrant.
-- Aesop
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature