intropod_ wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:39 am
I think you completely misinterpreted the previous post. Your riddle isn't a riddle. Each would have copyright claim to their own original work. Same as if two people draw pictures of the same green leafy tree.
That doesn't stop someone else from drawing their own tree, or stop them from drawing their own schematic diagram with all of the same components connected in exactly the same way.
Not at all, all im saying take your ideas and mskalas as stated about copyright and try them in a court, thats all. You simply dont read what i said instead continues mskalas arguing "schematics is draw by pen therefore copyrighted". In your mind and mskalas a straight line and a dot from CAD program is copyrighted, well then good luck in court, you will get thrown out just by industrial standard and general engineering practices alone.
mskala wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:51 am
Yes, but it's a reasonable misinterpretation if brokensolderingiron read only the first sentence of what I wrote. My main point developed in the second and later sentences of my comment was the same as theirs: although
schematics are subject to copyright, owning copyright to a schematic doesn't actually allow someone to claim very much intellectual property because it's easy to draw a new schematic and have a new copyright on the new drawing of the same circuit. The copyright only applies to the drawing, not the circuit. Map and territory.
The question of two drawings being exactly identical is something that often trips up people with a computing background, because copyright doesn't work like that. Two independently-created artifacts can have separate copyright status because they came from different places even if they are in the computing sense bit-for-bit identical. I wrote a Web log entry some years ago about that, which has since been widely cited and may be of interest: What Colour are your bits?
Not at all, i read all what you claimed, and your first sentence gives all away by the imaginary support of next sentences gobble gook ideas.
did my analyzes from a law/court point which you dont do. Your reasoning contains numerous fallacies from logic and court/law perspective,
copyright laws is first by country you dont even realize that. The other fallacy you make is to assume im from a computing background
but from law, something you obviously not have done. Besides deliberately avoiding what i said in my examples of your faulty reasoning
nor do you provide a prior court case to refer your reasoning to, nor do you provide copyright markers from existing schematics which in
itself would have the same legal standing as Chinese slabbing fake CE markings on everything they do today.
So again good luck in court with your two identical schematics copyrights, "high court" decisions for whatever your country calls them, sets precedence for the next court decision in similar cases , laws are dynamic in courts. There is no way in hell a court is going to buy your:
This-is-2-identical CAD-schematics-of-the-same-electrical-circuit-therefore-i-mksala-have-the-copyrights-to-one-of-the-identical-schematics-therefore-i-can-legally-demand-the-other-copyright-holder-to-pay-me-a-fee-i-decide-the-number-of. Thats how off road your copyright ideas are.
Do your self a service, show us ONE court case in which your reasoning of 2 identical schematics have been applied and court have said yes this is a legal case you may proceed to fee everybody on the internet.
Peoples argumentation also lacks the core of the chest "whom" is the intended target ( after all copyright is just about law) of this schematic copyright gobblegook? Well it turns out its always small scale boutiqe people who want to apply their wonky ideas and newer any larger established manufacturer who really would care about such thing in the first place...I wonder why?