code from a book "copyrights"
- Thread starter jinx
- Start date
flyingnunrt
Senior Member
How will they know what code is inside my picaxes anyhow?
hippy
Ex-Staff (retired)
Apple do appear to hold a design patent on such a design; D504,889. You can't blame Apple for pursuing infringements of design patents they hold though one can question how justified or legitimate such a patent is.
This is where common-sense may have to go out the window. Is there a patent ? Is it enforceable ? Is it infringed ? If the answers are yes then the outcome may be dictated no matter what one thinks of the merits, sensibilities or consequences of the case.
There were a number of different issues under consideration and this was only one. Any outcome can depend on the court, their laws, how they view things as well as how a case is argued. South Korea found each had infringed on the other. The UK threw Apple's claim out. The US found in Apple's favour.
They won't. Unless you publish it, reveal a project that suggests it is using code which is infringing, or someone tips them off that you are infringing.
If they suspect it but cannot prove it they could convince a judge to grant an order allowing them to seize your computers, source code and other information which would reveal infringement, or drag you into court and attempt to prove their claim through witness and evidence examination.
It wasn't just "rounded corners" though was it.
It was the whole appearance.(We can Google Trade Dress, I did
)
e.g. if a non-Apple-nerd was exposed to each device was it easy to tell them apart?
Apparently purchasers of Smart Phones are illiterate/blind as they can't read a tucking great lump of text which says "SAMSUNG".
So, it's not just source code copyright, but the final product too.
We won't mention Xerox.
I would follow Apple's example; wait until the competition made millions before you sue.
Has China made an own-brand copy yet?
It was the whole appearance.(We can Google Trade Dress, I did
)e.g. if a non-Apple-nerd was exposed to each device was it easy to tell them apart?
Apparently purchasers of Smart Phones are illiterate/blind as they can't read a tucking great lump of text which says "SAMSUNG".
So, it's not just source code copyright, but the final product too.
We won't mention Xerox.
I would follow Apple's example; wait until the competition made millions before you sue
.Has China made an own-brand copy yet?
inglewoodpete
Senior Member
But the Samsung owners feel so inferior, having paid only half as much as Apple owners.
Yes. When I was in China a year ago, there was a big fuss over couterfeit Apple iPhones being sold in couterfeit Apple stores.
JimPerry
Senior Member
Taiwan?
fritz42_male
Senior Member
I've published some stuff myself and also worked with an author who has released quite a few diet and health books. A lot of her work is based on research from elsewhere and she makes great use of this material. The simple fact is that as long as you cite. reference or include a bibliograph of referenced material, you can't be prosecuted for copyright infringement.
tl;dr copy as much as you want, but reference it in your document, post, email or whatever. Guidelines here:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/help/guidespublications/bib_cit/
tl;dr copy as much as you want, but reference it in your document, post, email or whatever. Guidelines here:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/help/guidespublications/bib_cit/
So if I publish a book, which includes the entire contents of another book, as long as I reference it, there is no copywright infringement ?
Sounds ridiculous.
hippy
Ex-Staff (retired)
It's not as simple as that. Mere citation and the like won't protect against a claim of infringement.
jedynakiewicz
Senior Member
Not just ridiculous, but ridiculously naive. It is simply not the case as you correctly infer. The reference that is given to the University of Warwick guidelines commences with a bullet point that states that the whole idea of referencing a source of information is to enable someone reading the document to find the material referred to or consulted; it is not a licence to print extracts of that information. The purpose of the reference is to enable someone to find the original information in order to avoid copyright issues in reproducing original material.
@fritz42_male seems to be confusing "references" with "attributions" and "acknowledgments". The latter are given when permission has been obtained to reproduce elements of a work.
References enable short quotes or comparative research findings to be mentioned in a subsequent publication, but if, for example one wished to reproduce a chart or graph from a published research paper then this would normally require the publishers' permission.
As many folks know, there is a worldwide corporate battle on to submit as many possibly patentable ideas to the patent offices of the world as possible. Not good ideas, or anything pertaining to the company's line of business, but simply anything and everything the patent office might possibly consider.
Why? Because large corporations have lawyers on staff who can organize and submit a large number of patent applications at a reasonable price, and the corporations use patents as weapons in inter-corporate warfare. The more patents they have on more ideas, processes, looks, feels, etc, the more weapons they have to use against just about anyone who creates a successful product.
When I worked at one of the international mega-corporations, any employee (janitor included,) was offered a $500 bonus for anything the corporate patent department filed with the governmental patent office, not just anything the patent office issued a patent on, but anything even submitted to it by the corporate lawyers! The longer the application, and the more claims it included, the better. Needless to say, we submitted a whole bunch of embarrassingly bad ideas, and got paid for many of them.
At some point, (perhaps already,) the multinational corporations will be able to claim a piece of just about anything created, simply because they have filed patents on parts of just about every possible idea, process, sequence, procedure or way of doing things that exists, simply because they could afford to.
Why? Because large corporations have lawyers on staff who can organize and submit a large number of patent applications at a reasonable price, and the corporations use patents as weapons in inter-corporate warfare. The more patents they have on more ideas, processes, looks, feels, etc, the more weapons they have to use against just about anyone who creates a successful product.
When I worked at one of the international mega-corporations, any employee (janitor included,) was offered a $500 bonus for anything the corporate patent department filed with the governmental patent office, not just anything the patent office issued a patent on, but anything even submitted to it by the corporate lawyers! The longer the application, and the more claims it included, the better. Needless to say, we submitted a whole bunch of embarrassingly bad ideas, and got paid for many of them.
At some point, (perhaps already,) the multinational corporations will be able to claim a piece of just about anything created, simply because they have filed patents on parts of just about every possible idea, process, sequence, procedure or way of doing things that exists, simply because they could afford to.