Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Ken Barry) Newsgroups: net.legal Subject: Protection of ideas? Message-ID: <482@ames.UUCP> Date: Sat, 18-Aug-84 20:54:47 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.482 Posted: Sat Aug 18 20:54:47 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 20-Aug-84 01:34:20 EDT Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 37 [*************=8>:) (snort)] > Lauren Weinstein: > idea, property, and personal rights are protected by law > in any case. The idea rights of the programming on cable and radio > transmission systems are certainly worth the same protections as > we would give any more "physical" items. It is silly to say > that something cannot be protected simply because "you can't touch it." Not to pick on Lauren, but I sometimes see some confusion in this discussion about the protection of "ideas" under the law. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. My understanding, however, is that the law does *not* protect ideas, but only specific implementations or expressions of ideas. Nor is this an oversight; the exclusion of ideas is intentional. The only way to protect an idea is to keep it a secret. For example, if I were to invent a time machine, I could get a patent on the device I created, and have legal protection against others copying (or nearly copying) my device without my permission. I could not, however, get a patent on the *idea* of time travel, nor exclusive rights to the physical principles by which my machine operated. Others would have a perfect right to build and use time machines, as long as they used a method not protected by my patent. And similarly for copyright: Larry Niven can copyright RINGWORLD, but could not copyright the *idea* of a ring-shaped world even if he'd originated it. The examples were chosen for clarity. There are cases (programming algorithms come to mind) where the distinction between 'idea' and 'expression- of-idea' is quite unclear. But I believe my statement of the legal principle is correct. Corrections and/or amplifications from those more knowledgeable than myself are welcomed. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry