As a matter of fact, yes; it would be. And not that it's any of your business, but I happen to be middle-of-the-road politically.



The defining case that "your side" came up with was one in which one of the two verdicts actually supported my arguments, so I don't see how you can make a claim about mine not being concrete enough.

And one of the points you've all been trying to pound home is that code is not the only copyrightable element of a program, right? Why, then, are you trying to argue that Microsoft's copying of a protected design element wasn't infringement simply because he didn't use their code?

I already cited the case of Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dieckhaus, where the court reversed a finding of infringement based solely on the similarities, stating "[t]he oral and documentary evidence in the record … establishes the fact that the defendant had no access to plaintiff's book unless the law of plagiarism permits the court to draw an inference contrary to such proof from its finding of similarities on comparison of the book with the picture."

In other words, once again quoting from the article, "The plaintiff must still meet some minimum threshold of proof which demonstrates that the inference of access is reasonable."



Algorithms are not protected by copyright law.

Duly noted. Insulting liberals = bad. Insulting conservatives = perfectly ok. Forgive my complete and utter ignorance of the new order of things.



Because it's been argued several times in several places that what Apple sued for wasn't actually a protected design element, but rather that they sued over the general idea of a point-and-click graphical interface to the operating system. Suing as a copyright infringement was off the mark. They should have sued as a patent infringement. The idea of a GUI is not copyrightable, but it is certainly patentable.

It never ceases to amaze me how you can completely warp the point of a post, distorting words beyond recognition until they come out as a weapon you can use against a position that was never held. :sigh: In any case, my point was to object to your uncalled-for and irrelevant political insult, all the more inappropriate as coming from a site administrator; I believe I have elaborated that point sufficiently, and will stop here.

I don't believe I warped the point of the post. You clearly object to insulting political comments directed at liberals, but seem to have no problem with the same directed at conservatives. It never ceases to amaze me how being blunt and cutting through the sugar coated crap to get to my point bothers you so much. But yeah, this would indeed be a good place to stop.

I beg to differ. I might regret going against my own suggestion, but which part of the following is unclear?

I don't know the details of that case, but I think it's safe to assume that there was probably a lot stronger evidence to disprove probable access in that case than their would be in the case of a MUD infringement, given the abundance of publically available code.



Theoretically you're correct (and I also pointed this out earlier in the thread), but in practice, there are ways to copyright algorithms via obfuscated lawyer jibberish that I couldn't even begin to explain. There are examples online, though.

They weren't suing because Microsoft used the "idea of a GUI". They were suing because Microsoft used Apple's (or whoever's - doesn't matter) design of a desktop themed GUI, which included several design elements specific to the original (mouse pointer, desktop icons, etc.).

That would depend on the specific mud you were accused of infringing, but I pointed out the case in response to your suggestion that "If it's close enough to be considered so, then proof of access or not, it's going to be considered infringement". The case in question clearly demonstrates that some minimum threshold of proof is required, regardless of similarities.



No, you cannot copyright algorithms. It's sometimes possible to patent them, and that's what was discussed earlier in the thread.

And they very likely got told to take a hike because they didn't get the idea from Apple. They both "stole" the idea from Xerox PARC. The whole mouse, pointer, desktop, icons thing. However Xerox didn't sue, Apple did. Copyright would have required that elements from Apples actual design be taken. Not that the general idea of a GUI be implemented. Though if MS did somehow get their hands on Apple's code, that would have been an entirely different situation.

If it's what the court would consider "virtually identical", I think you'd have one hell of a time trying to convince a court that you didn't have access - even if the original source was closed. If it's just "substantially similar", then obviously the threshold of proof would go up.



They qualify as "non-literal elements", so either you're wrong about non-literal elements being copyrightable, or you're wrong about algorithms being copyrightable; take your pick.

No, that would be like saying Guns shoot bullets, so all guns must shoot all bullets.

Either that is true, or the world is flat, take your pick.

-Syn

Once again, on the issue of access and copying it's the plaintiff who has the burden of proof, not the defendant. Also remember that "…there must be at least some other evidence which would establish a reasonable possibility that the complaining work was available to the alleged infringer. As noted, two works may be identical in every detail, but, if the alleged infringer created the accused work independently or both works were copied from a common source in the public domain, then there is no infringement".



No, they don't. Any protection for algorithms would need to come from patents or trade secrets. It is outside the scope of copyright law.

It was a manner of speech. I was saying that the odds are extremely stacked against you in that situation. The more similar the material, the less "proof" you'd need. Your own sources even say that, albeit inversely. At the point of "virtually identical" material, I'd imagine even the slightest plausible possibility of access would be enough.



According to you, the actual algorithm itself may not be copyrightable, but its "tangible expression within the work" is.

Hehe. Not quite ;)

Well, this was interesting: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.ht...

"Copyright protection is not available for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, or layouts."

Taking all of those into account, I fail to see what's left that's covered by "non-literal elements". Organization, design, and all the other stuff you listed earlier are quite obviously not protected.

A specific expression of an algorithm could be copyrighted, but the protection wouldn't extend to the algorithm itself. The distinction is an important one - unlike protected non-literal elements such as program architecture, "structure, sequence and organization", operational modules, and computer-user interface, there is nothing in copyright law stopping you from copying an algorithm.

All those things seem to be unprotectable according to that last source.

Also, I don't see any distinction between "algorithm" and "specific expression of an algorithm", personally. There's only two parts to an implementation of an algorithm: the algorithm itself, and the code implementing it. Anything beyond that is just word games, in my opinion.

Emphasis mine.
Your personal beliefs and opinions are not enough to sway the laws.

You claimed the exact same thing 140 posts ago, back in post 98. I'll repeat the same quote I made then.

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyr...

"Most courts confronted with the issue have determined that copyright protection extends not only to the literal elements of a program, i.e., its source code and object code, but also to its "nonliteral" elements, such as the program architecture, "structure, sequence and organization", operational modules, and computer-user interface. See, e.g., Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992)"



http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotec...

"An example is the best way to explain this idea/expression distinction. Suppose that an inventor discovers a process for cold fusion–an invention that would revolutionize society as we know it. If the inventor were to write down on paper a description of the process, that description would be protected against copyright infringement from the moment the work is fixed. If she were to publish her paper, no one would be able to make additional copies of the paper without her permission. However, anyone reading her paper could implement her process without fear of copyright infringement, since the process itself–the idea–is not protected under copyright law. In fact, it would even be allowable for someone to write a competing paper describing her invention, as long as the competing paper described the invention in its own words and did not take any "expression" from the original paper."