Funny.. I see a lot of backtracking…

And I see a lot of cheerleading by people not involved in the conversation ;)

I fail to see why arguing about a definition of "concept" which doesn't apply to copyright is at all relevant. We're discussing copyright. So it makes perfect sense to use the terms the way copyright law describes them, yes?

Though I personally think you're still getting the difference between patent and copyright mixed up. Your frustration is likely coming from the fact that the rest of us have assumed you were talking about the same thing we were.

You said the following:

The term "public domain" has very specific meaning in this context and can only be applied to things that can be "public-domained" in the first place. Since a concept is neither public nor private domain with respect to copyright, it makes no sense to talk about algorithm concepts being public domain, hence why I assumed you were talking about the implementation.

I think that Samson is probably correct that a great deal of frustration is coming from a disconnect of definitions…

I know full well what the difference is. I think you're under the impression that I don't because KaVir and I went off on a tangent about what a derivative work is. I brought up things that are not covered by copyright law only to simplify my point that everything is, at its most basic form, a derivative.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're bringing things into the discussion that have no relevance. It's also pretty ridiculous to think anyone here is going to accept that everything is derived from something else, especially in the context of the two codebases this whole tangent erupted from. SocketMUD isn't derived from anything, but NakedMUD is derived from SocketMUD.

If you don't want people confused, you should leave the patent and trademark concepts out of the discussion, they really are not relevant to it at all. Unless you want to discuss patentability of ideas and concepts found within NakedMUD or something.

The term "public domain" refers to any intellectual property which is not protected by law. I think, on that we can agree. Intellectual property, on the other hand, is usually considered to be the expression of a concept, but not the concept itself. However, then we're back to square one and what is or isn't considered a concept.

drrck is right that everything is a derivative, but in other contexts than copyright law (perhaps the philosophical context that everything we do is heavily influenced by things we have seen before). I also don't see why it's relevant to bring that up in the context of copyright law, and frankly it only confuses things.

In that case, it is possible that MUDs use algorithms that have been patented, so you can't just say that all non-game algorithms are public domain because they might not be.

Copyright law is fairly clear on what is considered a concept; I believe that you are trying to use definitions that are perfectly valid but in other contexts, and that just makes things confused and muddled when we're talking about copyrights.

SocketMUD is a derivative of the original MUDs, which were derivatives of RPGs, which were derivatives of board games, which were derivatives of… whatever came before that. Derivation encompasses quite a bit more than you seem to think.



Just because you don't understand the relevance doesn't make it irrelevant.

Technically speaking, algorithms aren't patentable, and have to be wrapped in obfuscated lawyer speak and paperwork tricks to even be considered. That said, though, patents are only granted to concepts that are original and non-obvious. You'd be hard pressed to find anything in the average MUD that was not only game-unspecific, but also original, non-obvious, and patented. So yeah, I guess I should have said "vast majority" instead of "all".

I also never intended for that comment about what is or isn't a concept to turn into a full-fledged conversation of its own. It was a rhetorical question posed to prompt abstract thought. Apparently I'm in the wrong place for that kind of thing, though.

MUDs are not not derived from board games in the sense that is appropriate for copyright law. That's pretty much the end of the story. You are using "derivative" in a sense that is perfectly valid but in other contexts. It's very muddling to use it in this context.


Well, here is an example of a patented algorit.... Note that the title says "implementation", but if you look at what the patent actually covers, there is no source code implementation. The "implementation" in this case is a selection of data structures and processes to solve the problem of longest-prefix matching. In other words, the "implementation" is the general process of the solution – therefore, the "implementation" is in fact the algorithm.


Ah, well, the problem is that what is obvious to software engineers and what is obvious to the patent office seem to be somewhat disconnected…


It's kind of a cheap snipe to say something like that when people respond to your rhetorical question by disagreeing with the thought you seem to have wanted it to provoke. :thinking:

Well, since I was strictly and explicitly speaking about those other contexts at the time that I brought it up, as they relate to this particular context, it isn't muddling to anyone open to metaphors and analogies. If you're a one-track type of person, I don't imagine it would make much sense to you and can see where you would be confused, though.



Actually, if you read the actual patent instead of the half page Google result, you'll see what the "implementation" for that particular algorithm is.



The patent office isn't comprised of backwater farm boys. I don't think you're giving them much credit…



Considering the fact that a rhetorical question isn't supposed to be responded to at all, I don't see how it's a snipe to point it out. He wanted to discuss it further, though, so I obliged.

Text has a tendency to make rhetorical questions hard to detect. This is probably the 4th time in as many days as I've seen a situation where one has been used, only to have the person who asked it start complaining because people actually thought they wanted an answer. Maybe next time it should be made more clear, yes?

Also, your quotes have been mis-attributed on your last two citations. Might want to fix that.

What half-page Google result are you talking about? Did you even look at the page I linked to? Apparently not…! The link you provided is the same text, and I still don't see any code.


I don't believe that I said they were stupid – I simply said that they have different ideas of what is obvious. (That doesn't make them stupid.) Clearly, you have not been following some of the patents they have attributed for software.


How can you possibly say something like that when you state that a question is meant to prompt thought, and when people post their thoughts on the matter, you blast them for not engaging in the abstract thought you meant to hear? If you don't want people to reply, don't say anything. Don't get all upset at people because they responded to something you like without agreeing with you… and please don't start insulting the whole community here by saying that we can't engage in abstract thought just because you didn't hear what you wanted to. :thinking:

I even answered my own rhetorical questions in order to force the point that it was rhetorical (i.e. Is the sky green? No, of course not.). There really isn't any other way to make it more clear - mayhaps you guys should sharpen your detection skills :)



Um… the link you provided is a (not even) half page summary of the abstract patent idea, with no details. I provided you with the correct link to the actual patent. An algorithm implementation doesn't have to be code. In this particular case, it was modeled.



I can't say that I follow software patents, so what are you referring to that would lead you to believe that they have any different ideas of what is obvious than you or I?



First off, I didn't "blast" or insult anyone, and I think you completely misunderstood my comment if that's how you took it. There are two major types of thinkers in the world: abstract and concrete. Neither is better than the other, so it wasn't meant as an insult.

Secondly, a rhetorical question is meant to provoke thought, not a discussion - that's the whole point of being rhetorical. If I had wanted to provoke discussion on the topic, I would have just said "hey, I think literary works are concepts, not expressions… what do you guys think?" As it happens, I didn't want to do that because it was a mostly unrelated tangent with no bearing on the thread's topic. However, KaVir obviously wanted to discuss it further, so, as I said, I obliged. I have yet to get upset/frustrated/aggravated/etc. and I don't really see why you and Samson seem to think I have. I'm a big boy now and I'm fully aware that everyone has their own opinions that may or may not coincide with my own, and that doesn't bother me. If you want a debate, though, that's fine with me, as long as it doesn't get personal and stays within the confines of argument/counter-argument and not "lawl he thinks he's always right.. what a nub" and the like (not directed at you, personally).

And as I've been telling you, there are no simple answers. Law isn't the simple thing you seem to want it to be, particularly for something like this. Each case would need to be analysed separately, based on the abstraction-filtration-comparison test, which would take away all of the non-protected non-literal elements and them examine whatever was left.

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/t...

While it seems simple to describe the abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis, the devil is in the details. The abstraction can result in the comparing of hundreds or thousands of different aspects of a computer program if one is not careful. Elements are filtered out of consideration on the basis of broad criteria, including:

· The element’s expression was dictated by reasons of efficiency, such as when it is the best way of performing a particular function.

· The element’s expression was dictated by external factors, such as using an existing file format or interoperating with another program.

· The element’s expression is a conventional way of writing something in the particular programming language or machine running the program.

· The element, at the particular level of abstraction, is an unprotectable process and not protectable expression.

· The element is taken from the public domain or is an unprotectable fact.

Any protection for elements dictated by efficiency or external factors or processes must come from patents or trade secrets, if at all, and not from copyright.

For most alleged copyright infringements, this filtering makes little difference. It is important to recognize that, with today’s large, complex programs, most copyright infringement consists of the verbatim copying or unauthorized distribution of a computer program, and no question over whether any similarities are protected expression or unprotected function need be considered.

But sometimes a program is based on another program, or takes features from another program, and at those times the abstraction-filtration-comparison test must be used to determine whether too much was taken and a copying of the non-literal elements has resulted in a copyright infringement.

As I quoted earlier, "there is an implication that the highest level at which expression might be found is in the organization and structure of hierarchy of modules". Within the context of muds, non-literal elements might (or might not, depending on the specific case) include such factors as the program architecture, structure, sequence and organization, operational modules, and user interfaces.



Legally speaking, no, they are not and it does not. And this is a legal discussion. The current debate is based on your incorrect claim that "…modifying an existing [game] to the point that all of the code is your own" gives you the same degree of ownership as you would have had you written it from scratch. You said you disagreed with the legal article I quoted concerning piecewise reimplementation because "…if taken literally, 99% of software ever created would be considered derivative work". The problem with your assumption is the crux of this disagreement - you're trying to apply the non-legal definition of "derivative" to a situation where only the legal definition has any meaning.

Well, at least we're getting closer to an example. Program architecture, structure, sequence, and organization are nowhere near copyrightable, however (no matter what the case). "Operational modules and user interfaces" are pretty vague - if you're talking about the source code, that's literal; if you're talking about the functions that they serve, those aren't copyrightable. But then, even if I'm wrong about this stuff not being copyrightable, everything you listed is a concept and you'd only be proving me right about that. Win/win for me :P



If I take an e-book and start replacing sentences one-by-one until I have a 100% unique work authored by me, I will have the same rights to it as if I had started from a blank Word document. The same applies for code. Where you're getting confused is that all of these articles you keep quoting are assuming at least -some- original work leftover and/or the lack of truly unique code (i.e. only re-styling, porting, translating, etc.). In those cases, I think we can all agree that infringement is going on. The whole derivation tangent has nothing to do with this, and spawned its own mini-discussion.

Look, do you think I'm stupid? Your keyboard probably has a page-down button. Use it. You can even use the down key. Or the mouse wheel. Take your pick… And next time, maybe you should look a little more closely when I not only provide a link saying it has content, but also gently correct you when you tell me the link is just a half page. Sheesh.


I'm not sure why you would want to provoke thought if not to have it be followed by a discussion, but hey… :shrug: Maybe we should all just stop this silliness and meditate in our own thought-provoked corners. :smile:


Unfortunately wrong, as is evidenced by e.g. translations. You have created a derived work. You are forgetting that there is more to content than the literal words – there are things like sentence structure, paragraphs, chapter structure, etc. Indeed, in code you can't just rewrite the lines one at a time and leave the program structure alone. You need to do quite a bit more than that to claim that you actually rewrote the whole thing.

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)"



Wrong again. They are the non-literal elements of original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible form of expression.



If you replace the English sentences of the e-book with the translated equivalent in Russian, then all of the original words will have been replaced - none of the literal elements will remain. However your new work will still be a derivative work, because copyright also extends to non-literal elements.



Yes, the protection of non-literal elements also applies for code, although it's not as clearly defined as it would be in something like a translation. That's why the abstraction-filtration-comparison test was introduced.