#dBase copyrights void ?
12 messages in this thread
It appears the issue of copyright protection and programs that were
originally developed from public domain code has just gotten muddied even
more.
Read the story on page APV-2718 (g apv2718) about how and why a
judge not only threw out the suits Ashton-Tate filed agains Fox and others,
but voided (at least for now….although I'm sure that part at least will
be held in abeyance for a bit) AT's copyrights on dBase.
It seems that dBase was originally based on public domain code from
JPL and AT never disclosed that information in the copyright filings.
If this ruling holds…it could lead to some VERY interesting
developements.
Don
Don,
Seems like if you go back far enough, almost every thing was developed from
PD code.
This could be alot of fun watching what happens on this.
Greg
Greg White / MicroSearch 72230,1617
We listen to our customers..carefully
The law on copyrights and PD is not that strange. The law, as I understand
it, says that you can copyight material which is based on PD sources, but
you must then show that you have made sufficient improvements and changes
to make your creation distinctly yours.
It's sort of like homesteading. You find open land and build your house
there, and it becomes your land & house because of the improvements.
Something like that.
Ashton-Tate's problem is that they did not attribute their PD source.
If they had, this issue would not have arisen, and their copyright
would be ironclad. As it is, the judge shocked them and the industry
observers by his voiding of the copyright, but I don't think he can make it
stick. You can be sure AT will rebound, and get their rights back.
Did you know that you could "own" classic lit and movies if you could
modify them in a new and unique manner? Someone owns a new copyright on
"It's a Wonderful Life" because they colorized it…
It may stick. After all, the striking down of the copyright only applies
to the dBase language, not to the product itself (which was not part of the
dispute with Fox).
-tc
Terry,
Humm…you better re-read that story. Presuming it correctly
reported the ruling, not only did the Judge throw out all copyrights on
dBase, it threw out the complaint against Fox and others.
Which would make sense, if the copyrights are void…then AT has no
standing in court to claim someone copied their software's look and feel.
Since the software isn't copyrighted (based on the Judge's decision), AT
has no legal basis to claim a copyright infringement.
Don
Sorry, but the only thing that was thrown out was the DBase LANGUAGE, not
DBASE itself. It's amazing how many people jump to this. Ashton-Tate
could still sue over pirating or infringing on the DBASE program itself.
Rob
Robert,
Like I said…I'm only repeating what was said in the news reports,
I didn't see or read the opinion itself.
The following was reported:
1. Ashton-Tate's lawsuit against Fox and others was thrown out.
2. Ashton-Tate's copyrights on dBase were voided.
3. If the decision holds, people may legally copy dBase since it's
no longer a copyrighted program.
4. Ashton-Tate is being sued because they licensed a product they
were not entitled to license.
Nowhere in the reports that I read was there any mention of the
copyrights being thrown out limited to the language itself…all the
stories I read (several of them) agreed, they were from several sources.
Now, I certainly agree those reports are far from legal opinions,
but it is strange none of the ones I read mentioned anything about limiting
the voided copyrights to the language itself.
I'm not saying you're wrong…but could you point me to a source
that specifies that the only thing voided was the language itself?
Don
Robert,
After leaving my first reply, I went searching on CIS for more
information.
Checking Ashton-Tate's dBase forum (G DBASE) message 16303, there
is nothing in it mentioning that the copyright on the language only was
invalidated.
Checking the lawyer's forum (G LAWSIG), message #76173 specifically
says all the copyrights on the *products* were invalidated. This was from
a lawyer who apparently read the ruling.
Finaly, checking PC Week's headline service (G PCWEEK), their
headline items specifically state that all copyrights on the products dBase
II, III and III+ have been ruled invalid.
There were also several messages indicating that technically, those
products are PD at this point in time; however, they also state that anyone
who attempted to make a copy believing they were PD would be foolish since
the final written opinion hasn't been issued nor has the decision been thru
an appeal process yet.
So, it would appear that far more than the copyright on the
language has been invalidated, the whole product(s) have been invalidated.
Don
Don, you say that in PC Week's headline service they said that dBASE II
through III+ was included. What about IV?
— Ethan
Ethan,
Not in the ruling…dBase IV wasn't included since it wasn't
mentioned in the lawsuit.
However, those discussing it in LAWSIG stated that if someone
pushed the issue…it would be included since it's copyrights are an
extension of the earlier dBase copyrights. If fact, they go on to state
(again…just their OPINION) that if the judge's ruling is upheld, dBaseIV
will surely come under the ruling.
Don
Well, I'll check what you said. The article on BIX that I saw, and the
majority of postings CLEARLY state the copyright violation was with the
language NOT the product. I fail to see how a product that has gone
through 4 major revisions cannot stand to its own copyright. It has little
to do with its origin at this point. The language however, is still
relying on the PD language from JPL. Anyways, I'll get back with this if I
can… Rob
Which in fact they're gonna do (i.e., continue to sue Fox over 'theft of
look and feel'). They just can't (unless the judge is overruled) try and
collect by claiming Fox copied the language…
– Mark