Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[oddtimeflux]

I've been very active at the patents section of the forums, as I have an invention of a certain device X which can be connected to a mobile phone. We are now starting development for the driver that establishes this connection. While I have gone to many lengths to protect the invention with utility patents, I'm not considering additional protection approaches. What do you suggest I should look into?

For example, the driver itself is not really a technological challenge. However, if I'll be the first to write such a driver I might be protected under the copyright of the code of the driver. I'm sure one can easily design around it by modifying certain elements of the code. However, the main method of operation of the driver cannot be discarded, because I connection would not be formed between device X and the mobile phone. Is it prudent to make steps to copyright the code, and by doing so preventing other parties from using it, even by modifying certain sections of it?

I'd appreciate some general guidance on the subject, and/or reference to some readying material.

[Isaac]

For example, the driver itself is not really a technological challenge. However, if I'll be the first to write such a driver I might be protected under the copyright of the code of the driver.

You have a copyright in your code as soon as you write it down or store it.

You can register the copyright for your code, but copyright does not extend to protecting the method of operation, so it will always be possible to write an equivalent driver.

It there is some signficant work involved, then perhaps its worthwhile to register the copyright.  If not, then perhaps there's no point.

The second and third persons to write a driver can also register the copyright for their code.

[oddtimeflux]

It there is some signficant work involved, then perhaps its worthwhile to register the copyright.  If not, then perhaps there's no point.

Define significant.

All I can say is that there might be a section that will be necessary even for variations. For example, say the driver connects device X to a mobile phone by WiFi. There might be other features and elements to the driver, but this is the core and without it the driver doesn't work. In that case I assume it'll be wise to register that specific section of the driver's code, no?

[Isaac]

Define significant.

I cannot.

It's a touchy-feely, personal thing.  Since your copyright does not prevent someone from independently recreating the code, why bother copyrighting a few lines of code that don't take much effort to recreate.  If it's not a part of a larger body of code, is even the copyright office's small charge for registration worth paying for say, an hour's worth of debugged code?

but this is the core and without it the driver doesn't work.  In that case I assume it'll be wise to register that specific section of the driver's code, no?

I don't see the point in picking out sections of a driver code to register.  Register the whole thing.  But if certain code is essentially required in order to make a driver work, it's possible that that particular portion of the code cannot be protected by copyright.  If everybody who would write a driver in say 'C' would use the same code for that core portion, then that code probably isn't protectable by copyright and everyone can copy it.

[khazzah]

But if certain code is essentially required in order to make a driver work, it's possible that that particular portion of the code cannot be protected by copyright.  If everybody who would write a driver in say 'C' would use the same code for that core portion, then that code probably isn't protectable by copyright and everyone can copy it.

To add to what Isaac has said....

The operating system dictates a particular interface for a driver. That means the code that implements this interface may not be copyrightable under the merger doctrine, which says (in paraphrase) that a particular expression which is necessary to achieving the idea is not copyrightable. Building on this doctrine, a leading software copyright case (Computer Associates v. Altai) held that elements dictated by external factors (e.g., market demands, interoperability standards, and standard programming techniques) are not copyrightable.

[Isaac]

(Computer Associates v. Altai)

Also, Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components which involved toner control code in printer cartridges.  The opinion describes failing attempts to protect code using trademark law, DMCA, and copyright protection.

[oddtimeflux]

Makes sense. Thanks.