Replies to post #34630 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[TonyMcFadden]

SPINner,

I guess the court has no idea what they are talking about, and should defer to your stellar intellect.

"Factual compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite originality. The compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers. These choices as to selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently original that Congress may protect such compilations through the copyright laws. Nimmer ss 2.11[D], 3.03; Denicola 523, n. 38. Thus, even a directory that contains absolutely no protectible written expression, only facts, meets the constitutional minimum for copyright protection if it features an original selection or arrangement. See: Harper & Row, 471 U.S., at 547, 105 S.Ct., at 2223. Accord, Nimmer s 3.03."

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/feist.html#IIA

[TonyMcFadden]

OT: After reading all of the courts response re: Feist, I am surprised that you would even consider using it as an argument against copyright of http://www.tonymcfadden.com/tpmvendors.htm Throughout the decision there are numerous references to the minimum level of originality and creativity required to claim copyright, and how that can be defined. I'm not claiming that it is a brialliant piece of work, or that it will go down in the annals of trusted computing industry, but it clearly satisfies the court's argument that "...selection, coordination, and arrangement are sufficiently original to merit protection."

You had little credibility with me to start with, but I always thought you had some cleverness when it came to law.

Turns out I was wrong.

My last public post on this subject. Take it private if you want to continue...