Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0uCnzT-00007jC; Fri, 26 Apr 96 08:55 CDT |
Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Old-Return-Path: |
<sterki> |
Date: |
Fri, 26 Apr 1996 08:55:14 -0500 (CDT) |
Precedence: |
list |
Resent-From: |
|
Resent-Sender: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Status: |
O |
X-Mailing-List: |
|
TO: |
|
Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
Resent-Message-ID: |
<"q3Kcv1.0.wD8.6NDWn"@ipc> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
From [log in to unmask] Wed May 1 12: |
50:52 1996 |
X-Status: |
|
X-Loop: |
|
Message-ID: |
<Pine.3.89.9604260821.A92980-0100000@ipc> |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Originally From: Pamela Samuelson -- Cornell Law School -
Forum: Copyright Law
Date: Thu Apr 25 09:21:43 1996
Subject: Copyright on Wiring Boards
There is, in my view, no chance whatsoever to claim copyright
protection on the layout you describe. Recall that back in the
late 1970's and early 1980's, Intel tried to get copyright
protection for the layout of semiconductors in chips by first
claiming copyright in the drawings of the chip layout (no
problem), then trying to register copyright in the masks made from
the drawings as a derivative work of a copyrighted work that
embodied the same expression (the Copyright Office refused), and
asserting that the chip layouts themselves were also protectable
by copyright law as yet another derivative work (also refused by
the Copyright Office).
This kind of work would fall under the category of pictorial,
sculptural, or graphic work, and is therefore subject to the
useful article limitation. I don't perceive from your statement
how there could be any expression separable from the utilitarian
design elements for copyright law to protect.
*==== Menu: DISCUSS ====*
- National Topical Forums
- Intellectual Property
- Copyright Law
|
|
|