Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Skeeve Stevens < skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com> wrote:
My views are that if artistic endeavour is involved, then it is IP. Architecture is certainly that... the look... but, the pipes, sewerage, electricity, door locks... are not. They are products, bought of the shelf and assembled.
Hi Skeeve, I think I see where you're getting hung up. The whole thing is intellectual property (IP). Including all of the parts. The pipes, the wires, the locks, all of it. But that doesn't necessarily mean that each part is protectable independent of the rest. Copyright law basically says that if there is any substantive creative input into a work's creation then the work is not only copyrightable, unless the author explicitly says different it's also copyrighted. Throw a paint filled balloon at a canvas and the resulting splatter is copyrighted. Consider: do more unforced choices, more optional choices, more creative choices go in to the production of a router configuration? Of course they do. One can be snobbish about whether that qualifies as art, but it's certainly intellectual property (IP). The catch here is that independent creation is proof against copyright violation. So if there really are only three ways to configure something, you will never successfully enforce the fact that your configuration used one of them. Just because your router configuration is copyrighted doesn't mean someone else can't create exactly the same configuration. And their version will carry a full copyright too. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Copyright law basically says that if there is any substantive creative input into a work's creation then the work is not only copyrightable, unless the author explicitly says different it's also copyrighted. Throw a paint filled balloon at a canvas and the resulting splatter is copyrighted. Consider: do more unforced choices, more optional choices, more creative choices go in to the production of a router configuration? Of course they do.
One can be snobbish about whether that qualifies as art, but it's certainly intellectual property (IP).
This assumes that Copyright is the only IP protection out there. There are actually two distinct realms of IP protection afforded in the US. Most other nations have a similar division. Copyright is for works of original creation, but cannot cover a process, practice, or device. Patents, on the other hand, cover processes, practices, and devices, etc. On a theoretical level, a network design and/or it’s documentation, configuration files, etc. could be and likely are copyright(-able,-ed). On a theoretical level, if you come up with some truly novel non-obvious reduction to practice of some particular process, you might well be able to patent it. While independent creation is a defense for copyright, it is irrelevant to a patent. Prior art can be a valid defense for a patent, but independently arriving at the same conclusion from independent development is not, in itself, a valid defense. (Showing that the patent is obvious, a minimal evolutionary step, or other such trivialization can be a valid defense.) However, all of the technicalities on this stuff vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The broad strokes have been normalized through treaties for the most part, but details and technicalities still vary quite a bit. As such, if it really matters, get good local legal advice from all involved countries. Owen
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
This assumes that Copyright is the only IP protection out there. There are actually two distinct realms of IP protection afforded in the US.
Actually, there are four: copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret. A network configuration could fall under either copyright or trade secret. It won't fall under trademark and it's hard to imagine how a network configuration of a general shape anticipated by the router manufacturer could fall under patent. Not with the double-whammy of prior art and the recent rulings to the effect that adding "on a computer" to a technique is insufficient to make it patentable.
However, all of the technicalities on this stuff vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The broad strokes have been normalized through treaties for the most part, but details and technicalities still vary quite a bit.
There are only so many jurisdictions with distinct law in North America. You know, this being NANOG and all. -Bill -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On 2/15/2015 8:57 AM, William Herrin wrote:
This assumes that Copyright is the only IP protection out there. There are actually two distinct realms of IP protection afforded in the US. Actually, there are four: copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret. A network configuration could fall under either copyright or
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote: trade secret. It won't fall under trademark and it's hard to imagine how a network configuration of a general shape anticipated by the router manufacturer could fall under patent. Not with the double-whammy of prior art and the recent rulings to the effect that adding "on a computer" to a technique is insufficient to make it patentable.
I also believe it is important to note that only certain pieces retain protection. Uniquely entered data forms the basis, which protects the whole. Retaining a full copy of the config or even portions of the config which contain unique data would be a violation. This not only applies to IP Addresses entered, but also applies to routing policies. As you exceed the basics of a policy(qualified as trivial, anyone would draw that single circle with a compass), you enter into the realm of artistry. It is not that another config cannot do something similar, it just can't do it word for word. Changing the identifiers in the policies is probably not enough if you have a 50+ line policy that doesn't have prior art. Most engineers know when they've crossed the line from trivial/mundane into creative. It tends to be linked to our pride. One thing to be careful of and definitely to seek a lawyer's advice on is the "transference of IP". This is because it can be retroactive. If you've created a set of policies that you use normally with clients that do not retain IP, then a transference of IP could take your rights away. You lose the prior art because you were the artist and you've given your rights to that art to someone else (which is one reason some companies want IP; legal protection). One way around this, most likely, is to establish your art as public domain (allowing you continued use of the foundation work, while losing the more specific details associated with that one project). By doing so, you may be able to protect the art itself. A lawyer would know best, of course. Jack
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 09:53:46 -0600, Jack Bates said:
want IP; legal protection). One way around this, most likely, is to establish your art as public domain (allowing you continued use of the foundation work, while losing the more specific details associated with that one project). By doing so, you may be able to protect the art itself. A lawyer would know best, of course.
Actually, doesn't even take a laweyer. "Public domain" has a very specific meaning, and is probably *not* what you want in this case. It basically means "I disavow ownership and all rights to this, and anybody can take this and do whatever they want with it, including making money off it". Most importantly, you can't even waive liability - this is why stuff like the MIT X11 or similar licenses got created - you need to keep your rights in order to attach a "by taking this, you promise not to sue me to my skivvies".clause. If you put it in the public domain, somebody can take it, change it, use it, make a ton of money off it, and then *still* sue you to your skivvies if it malfunctions (say, their network breaks because you didn't include any anti-DDoS support, but you could have, and they get hit with one). Now here's were you want to double-check with a lawyer. Make your base code a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND license - people can make copies of it, but can't make derivative works (in other words, they can't make changes to fit their environment) or use it for commercial purposes (which is a game stopper if you're trying to make money off it). You still have all rights, so you can then negotiate the rights to the difference between your base and the particular client's install, That may still be non-optimal for your use, because everybdoy can make a copoy - but if you were OK with public domain, that's probably not a show-stopper here. Would be if you wanted to keep trade secrecy status on your base (so consult a good IP lawyer ;)
participants (4)
-
Jack Bates -
Owen DeLong -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Herrin