We've been discussing copyright issues in other threads that all appear to be closed.
But I read an interesting report today that throws (at least for me) another light on the issue.
A court here in Amsterdam issued a verdict in a case where two parties claimed copyright to a specific design.
The judge ruled that for that specific design, no copyright could be claimed by either party. Why?
The design choices made were based on functional and technical factors. None of the design dicisions were based on any form of creativity.
If I translate that, it would mean that if you design say an opamp stage, you cannot claim copyright on the circuit unless that circuit has creative design decisions.
The values of resistors and capacitors, and their arrangement to get a stage with x gain and b bandwidth are functional and technical and do not warrant copyright protection in themselves.
You must have design decisions/arrangements where those knowledgable in the art are surprised and agree it is novel/creative.
For me it seems that some of the patent criteria seep through into copyright territory.
This was just one judge but it does establish a precedent.
Jan
But I read an interesting report today that throws (at least for me) another light on the issue.
A court here in Amsterdam issued a verdict in a case where two parties claimed copyright to a specific design.
The judge ruled that for that specific design, no copyright could be claimed by either party. Why?
The design choices made were based on functional and technical factors. None of the design dicisions were based on any form of creativity.
If I translate that, it would mean that if you design say an opamp stage, you cannot claim copyright on the circuit unless that circuit has creative design decisions.
The values of resistors and capacitors, and their arrangement to get a stage with x gain and b bandwidth are functional and technical and do not warrant copyright protection in themselves.
You must have design decisions/arrangements where those knowledgable in the art are surprised and agree it is novel/creative.
For me it seems that some of the patent criteria seep through into copyright territory.
This was just one judge but it does establish a precedent.
Jan
Actually, that has a long tradition, in Germany there has been a difference between "Patent" and "Geschmacksmuster" (design) for pretty exactly 150 years, this has been copied into EU law.
What you describe is exactly the problem TLG (THE LEGO GROUP, also known as "LEGO") has. They simply cannot protect their brick design (any more), as all parts of it follow a technical necessity. That's why everyone and his dog are free to offer compatible bricks. However you can't clone the "Minifig", which is covered by a design patent. The design patent itself means weaker, but broader protection - a lot of money will help in court, to claim as broad as possible protection.
Same with circuits - after all, they are just a combination of parts, that follow certain connection requirements. So you will not receive any protection, even unexpected results will likely not be covered IP. Hovever the layout or your PCB (I assume it needs to reach a certain level of complexity though) will be covered as IP.
Edit: This is always a small grate for lawmakers - support but don't hinder technical progress. Suprisingly, this system has survived 150 years, so it seems halfway OK, at least in general.)
What you describe is exactly the problem TLG (THE LEGO GROUP, also known as "LEGO") has. They simply cannot protect their brick design (any more), as all parts of it follow a technical necessity. That's why everyone and his dog are free to offer compatible bricks. However you can't clone the "Minifig", which is covered by a design patent. The design patent itself means weaker, but broader protection - a lot of money will help in court, to claim as broad as possible protection.
Same with circuits - after all, they are just a combination of parts, that follow certain connection requirements. So you will not receive any protection, even unexpected results will likely not be covered IP. Hovever the layout or your PCB (I assume it needs to reach a certain level of complexity though) will be covered as IP.
Edit: This is always a small grate for lawmakers - support but don't hinder technical progress. Suprisingly, this system has survived 150 years, so it seems halfway OK, at least in general.)
That has always been my understanding. You might be able to patent a truly novel circuit like current dumping back in the day, but copyright only applies to the actual schematic, source code etc.
We would be in real trouble if you could copyright a circuit concept as it lasts much longer than patent protection.
We would be in real trouble if you could copyright a circuit concept as it lasts much longer than patent protection.
The US has Design Patents, but they are more like a copyright. Things like the shape of a soft drink bottle.
Some audiophile equipment manufactures claim that their product is patented, but it's really a Design Patent.
Some audiophile equipment manufactures claim that their product is patented, but it's really a Design Patent.
I have been taught that copyright isn't of much use for electronic circuits, as it protects the form but not the ideas behind a design. For example, copying a schematic exactly may violate copyright if the requirements of quotation right are not met, but redrawing a schematic is fine, unless the redrawn schematic looks too much like the original. If the original and redrawn schematic look similar because there is only one clear or logical way to draw it, there is no violation.
Many tech companies exist without contribution by simply servicing (and suing) over their patents (which they likely bought or sued to get), no creativity no invention, just usery, Dante would be (discussed) proud
I wonder if we're going back to the situation patents were supposed to solve. Everybody will just have trade secrets and hope nobody copies them.
Tom
Tom
It sounds like the item being described did not qualify as either a creative work or an invention. 😉
Ed
Ed
@jan.didden - I tried to find a reference to that case, but I was unsuccessful, could you point me toward it, please.
Copyright, Trademark, Utility Patent, and Design Patent, often seem to get conflated in threads. Some protections may overlap in practice, but it's not as common as many may think it to be (at least in the USA). Each offers protections in specific ways.
Generally, copyright protection and patent protection (in my limited experience) don't overlap often.
The case you describe would be very interesting to me.
With thanks,
Patrick
Copyright, Trademark, Utility Patent, and Design Patent, often seem to get conflated in threads. Some protections may overlap in practice, but it's not as common as many may think it to be (at least in the USA). Each offers protections in specific ways.
Generally, copyright protection and patent protection (in my limited experience) don't overlap often.
The case you describe would be very interesting to me.
With thanks,
Patrick
The article is in Dutch, unfortunately. Maybe Google can help.
https://www.engineersonline.nl/achtergrond/geen-auteursrecht-op-technisch-en-functioneel-ontwerp/
Jan
https://www.engineersonline.nl/achtergrond/geen-auteursrecht-op-technisch-en-functioneel-ontwerp/
Jan
^ Thank you so much, Jan.
The translation worked wonderfully. The article describes precisely the outcome I would have expected given the facts presented (if this case were brought in the USA)
The translation worked wonderfully. The article describes precisely the outcome I would have expected given the facts presented (if this case were brought in the USA)