Re: softwarecombinations paper again Re: LGPL vs. GPL

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> The courts have ruled differently for works of fiction designed to
> interoperate with other fiction (namely, using the same
> setting/worldview and characters).

Dak, dak, dak.

http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/AlphaBrief.pdf

-------
Omega will argue that our case is more analogous to Micro Star v.
Formgen, 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998), as opposed to Galoob. In
Formgen, defendant’s “MAP files” created new levels for plaintiff’s
video game and were found to be derivative works of the original game.
Id. at 1112. However, analogizing Connector to the MAP files in Formgen
is inappropriate. First, it is important to note that the infringed
preexisting work in Formgen was the story of plaintiff’s original game.
Id. The court found that defendants MAP files “described” new stories
that were “based upon” plaintiff’s original story, and so the MAP files
were deemed to be “sequels” that incorporated plaintiff’s preexisting
protected story. Id. at 1111-1112. As such, although the MAP files
contained no computer code from plaintiff’s preexisting work, the MAP
files incorporated copyrightable elements of plaintiff’s story and were
therefore considered derivative works. Id. at 1112. In contrast to the
video games at issue in Formgen, neither Database Manager 2.0 nor
Connector contain a copyrightable “story.” Connector consists of literal
computer code that invokes the functionality provided by Database
Manager 2.0, and in no way “describes” Database Manager 2.0. Analogizing
Database Manager 2.0 to a “story,” and Connector to a “sequel,” is
inappropriate. Connector incorporates no copyrightable elements from
Database Manager 2.0, whether literal or non-literal. As such, Connector
should not be considered a derivative work under the Copyright Act.
-------

Don't miss

http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/MootFacts.pdf
http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/OmegaBrief.pdf
http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/media/04.%20Beyond%20the%20Basics%20-%20Patent%20Law.mp3

as well.

More on Micro Star and Duke Nukem:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9656426.html

-------
Micro Star further argues that the MAP files are not derivative works
because they do not, in fact, incorporate any of D/N-3D’s protected
expression. In particular, Micro Star makes much of the fact that the
N/I MAP files reference the source art library, but do not actually
contain any art files themselves. Therefore, it claims, nothing of
D/N-3D’s is reproduced in the MAP files. In making this argument, Micro
Star misconstrues the protected work. The work that Micro Star infringes
is the D/N-3D story itself—a beefy commando type named Duke who wanders
around post-Apocalypse Los Angeles, shooting Pig Cops with a gun,
lobbing hand grenades, searching for medkits and steroids, using a
jetpack to leap over obstacles, blowing up gas tanks, avoiding
radioactive slime. A copyright owner holds the right to create sequels,
see Trust Co. Bank v. MGM/UA Entertainment Co., 772 F.2d 740 (11th Cir.
1985), and the stories told in the N/I MAP files are surely sequels,
telling new (though somewhat repetitive) tales of Duke’s fabulous
adventures. A book about Duke Nukem would infringe for the same reason,
even if it contained no pictures.
-------

regards,
alexander.

--
"Copyright license -> Copyright law
 Contract -> Contract law

 DUH!"
             -- mini-RMS <rms@1407.org>