SIGIA-L Mail Archives: RE: Navigation Patent (was RE: SIGIA-L:
RE: Navigation Patent (was RE: SIGIA-L: (no subject))
From: Ian Connelly (Ianc_at_teamguru.com)
Date: Tue Aug 15 2000 - 20:58:06 EDT
Listen.com's cease-and-desist against Napster for
replicating their 'directory tree' has bearing on
this idea (copying Yahoo!'s directory structure),
as well as on the copyrightableness of navigational
schemes at large, i think.
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,37518,00.html
according to a copyright lawyer cited in the article:
"Copyright does not protect 'terms' or ideas, only
expressions of ideas," copyright lawyer Whitney
Broussard of Selverne, Mandelbaum & Mintz, wrote in
an email. "A classification system is more like an idea
than an expression. A database is the expression of
that idea of the classification system."
"Trademark protects words only when they are used
to denote the origin of the goods or services," said
Broussard. "Since the genre classifications they claim
to have originated are not used to designate that
the origin of those goods is Listen.com, then they
cannot claim trademark rights."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tal Herman [mailto:therman_at_bitcast.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 12:56 PM
> To: sigia-l_at_asis.org
> Subject: Navigation Patent (was RE: SIGIA-L: (no subject))
>
>
> It's been a while since I thought about this issue, but there
> is potentially
> relevant legal case law out there on this subject. The case
> to look at is
> _Lotus v. Borland_,
> <http://www.richmond.edu/~jolt/v1i1/lotus_v._borland.html>.
> It came out of
> the First Circuit Court of Appeals and the upshot of the
> ruling was that
> Borland did not infringe on Lotus copyright in interface
> elements of the
> Lotus 1-2-3 program when it used those same elements in the Borland
> spreadsheet product. The case was appealed to the US Supreme
> Court, which
> split evenly (4-4) on the issues, thus leaving the First
> Circuit decision as
> valid precedent, at least in the First Circuit. This case
> does not address
> the questions which might arise in modern GUI interfaces
> where the design
> elements might be more compelling than the keyboard commands
> at issue in
> Lotus v. Borland. Nonetheless, it is a starting point for
> research on the
> issue.
>
> Tal
>
> ====================================
> tal herman
> therman_at_seralat.com
> <http://www.seralat.com/>
> [Please note the new e-mail address]
> ====================================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sigia-l_at_asis.org
> [mailto:owner-sigia-l_at_asis.org]On Behalf Of
> James Weinheimer
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 1:41 PM
> To: ASIS-IA sigia-l_at_asis.org
> Subject: SIGIA-L: (no subject)
>
>
> Reposted from Paul Caron--Jim
>
> --------------------------
>
> Hey, folks,
>
> A client is asking if the navigation we've developed for them
> infringes on
> any patents. Has anyone ever heard of a navigation scheme
> being patented?
> Or legal issues arising from the development and use of a navigation
> scheme that was similar to someone else's?
>
> It seemed like a silly question at first (every IA team would
> require a
> lawyer for every project then, wouldn't they?), but upon
> thinking about
> it, I could see a situation where, for example, a complete
> duplication of
> Yahoo's hierarchical subject structure might raise a few legal
> eyebrows....
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:54:21 EST
|
