[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Discussions at the Paneris philosophy node ]

Re: ip

Posted by Simeon Williamson on Mon Mar 8 18:54:55 1999

In Reply to: ip posted by TimJ on March 08, 1999 at 18:06:45:

Distribution: paneris@i-way.co.uk timj@hoop.co.uk
>Keyhaven, have a good one:

>Their old supplier of web design (www.shiftf7.co.uk) have threatened them with legal action over the ip rights to the javascript used on a couple of sites (http://www.keyhaven.com/home.html and http://www.tankmuseum.co.uk/home.html). Keyhaven paid a lot of money for the design of these sites, but shiftf7 seem to think that the javascript is not included.

It would be interesting to know why Shiftf7 think that the javascript was not included as part of the rest of the web design (not ownership of the code - i.e. the copyright - merely a license to use the code in the way that one would expect it to be used in the web design) - there is something called "non-derogation of grant" which provides that if you sell something to someone you cannot interfere with a purchaser's right to use that article for the rest of its natural life. This principle isn't normally applied to IP matters but it has been once (by the House of Lords in British Leyland v. Armstrong a case concerning the copyright protection for exhaust pipes).

>The obviously havn't got a leg to stand on, but to even care that much about 30 lines of javascript is daft. i figure "the devil makes work for idle hands", and they are going bust.

>Anyway i offered to replace the script with our own code, but how can I prove it's mine as it will look very similar to the shiftf7 stuff. the only differences i can think of introducing are changing the function and variable names. the code is too trivial to put our own mark on the structure of it.

The recognised technique for doing this sort of thing is to use a clean room approach. You have to find someone who hasn't seen the code. Then you write down the functions which you want the code to perform and give them to the programmer still without showing him the actual code which you want to reconstruct. Then test the code and check it does what its supposed to (and check its not identical to the original code or you will have a hard time convincing the court that you actually used the clean room approach, however you should be able to overcome this problem if it really is trivial by documenting what you are doing - the courts will generally believe someone if they are telling the truth). This method should overcome copyright (which I am assuming is the IP right being asserted by shiftf7) it will not work if they have managed to get patent protection for the code.

>has anyone got any experience in this? on a wider perspective, what rights can people expect to wield over published source code?

Copyright mainly but also possibly patent protection provided they apply for it before publicly disclosing the code and provided they have a clever patent attorney in anywhere but the US.

Hope this helps

Simeon

p.s. just changing a few function names won't help. As the name suggests, to avoid copyright you have to avoid copying the work in question. Copying it and then changing it a bit still means it was copied.




Follow Ups: