Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: orb85750 on January 09, 2009, 07:59:51 PM
-
I'm trying to get a handle on the legal status of Amiga clones. If I understand correctly, the only legal hurdle is the Kickstart ROM, because the information on it is protected by copyright. The Amiga custom chipset, as a physical device, is not protected by copyright and the patents (if they existed) have expired? Hence, is one free to produce as many Agnus chips as he/she desires? How about making (Motorola) 68000 chips if we should choose to do so? No problem there?
What did past producers of Amiga clones (e.g. DraCo, etc.) do about the AmigaOS? Did they all use the officially licensed OS?
Has anyone on this board burned their own Kickstart ROMS? I suppose that would be illegal, just as software piracy is illegal? And is there any way around this legal hurdle for Amiga clones today?
Thanks, -Dave
-
>kickstart
yup - you're right
>The Amiga custom chipset,
well, you cannot "copy" the chips, but as far as I understand you are free to reverse engineer them. E.g. without "looking" you can design chips that do the exact same job with the exact same pin-layout.
>68000
nop, Motorola still owns that design (and frankly... rev.eng is simply not worth it here)
>burn KS roms
yes/no... as I see it: if you have an Amiga 3.1 rom chip legally aquired, then you are allowed to burn a copy (with extra stuff) as long as you ONLY use either the original rom OR the new one in ONE machine.
Just my £0.02
Tom UK
-
Our best hope for getting around the Kickstart hurdle, which as far as I understand it is the only hurdle, is getting the 68k port of AROS back into development. There is a bounty, and an individual has accepted the bounty, but we have heard nothing form him since he accepted it. So, we have no idea whether it is almost complete, not even started, or somewhere in between.
Even if the initial releases are not very compatible with the A Inc kickstart, it would be really good for the MiniMig community if it could be shipped with the an OS so that it booted right out of the box.
-
The only thing up for debate is that Commodore published an Amiga Hardware Reference Manual in 1990(?) which describes the inner workings of the Amiga in English.
If you are to publish a "translation" of this book into another language (i.e. VHDL/Verilog) there is a slim chance they could go after you for copyright infringement.
But realistically no-one is going to care unless you make some serious money.
Some companies sell 68000 clones for FPGA and there are several open source 68000 clones for FPGA and Freescale has done nothing. That said no-one has tried to make a competitive ASIC chip. ARM and MIPS have successfully prevented people making clones of their chips but they are not quite as old.
I suspect that 90% of KS chips sold today are sold illegally. I wonder who has licenses to produce EPROMs these days and what and how they pay?
-
@alexh
I doubt that. IBM published the source code for the original PC BIOS, and it spawned the PC clone industry.
Regarding Kickstart, you need a ROM bootstrap (might even be able to use the original, depending on what was made available to developers for redistribution), Exec, and all the devices and libraries normally attached to Kickstart. If you want m68k code, then much of it has already been replaced by various third-party patches.
-
I'm still confused about the legal status (but I'm not talking about the software contents on a ROM chip now). Why is it illegal to copy a given (circuit on a) chip verbatim after the patent for that chip has expired? During the patent period, it makes sense that one would have to produce a similarly operating chip by some other means (e.g. when AMD "copies" Intel), but does that hold even after the patent expires? Copyrights on designs never protect you legally against someone else building and selling that product, correct? That's why there are patents for processes and products.
And for clarity, look at the generic drug market as an example: When the patent on Viagra ends, can't any generic drug company simply look directly at the molecular structure and copy it? Or do they somehow have to reverse-engineer the drug without looking directly at the precise molecular structure? That doesn't seem to make sense. (Am I making sense?)
Thanks,
-Dave
Nostalgiac wrote:
>kickstart
yup - you're right
>The Amiga custom chipset,
well, you cannot "copy" the chips, but as far as I understand you are free to reverse engineer them. E.g. without "looking" you can design chips that do the exact same job with the exact same pin-layout.
>68000
nop, Motorola still owns that design (and frankly... rev.eng is simply not worth it here)
>burn KS roms
yes/no... as I see it: if you have an Amiga 3.1 rom chip legally aquired, then you are allowed to burn a copy (with extra stuff) as long as you ONLY use either the original rom OR the new one in ONE machine.
Just my £0.02
Tom UK
-
Belial6 wrote:
Our best hope for getting around the Kickstart hurdle, which as far as I understand it is the only hurdle, is getting the 68k port of AROS back into development. There is a bounty, and an individual has accepted the bounty, but we have heard nothing form him since he accepted it. So, we have no idea whether it is almost complete, not even started, or somewhere in between.
Even if the initial releases are not very compatible with the A Inc kickstart, it would be really good for the MiniMig community if it could be shipped with the an OS so that it booted right out of the box.
Is the resulting product supposed to be an emulation of the Amiga ROM vs. a copy of the ROM?
-
Does anyone know who owns the copyright to the Amiga manuals?
If I were to make an Amiga 2000 from the schematics would that be wrong?
I do not know a whole lot about copyrights.
-
orb85750 wrote:
I'm still confused about the legal status (but I'm not talking about the software contents on a ROM chip now). Why is it illegal to copy a given (circuit on a) chip verbatim after the patent for that chip has expired? During the patent period, it makes sense that one would have to produce a similarly operating chip by some other means (e.g. when AMD "copies" Intel), but does that hold even after the patent expires? Copyrights on designs never protect you legally against someone else building and selling that product, correct? That's why there are patents for processes and products.
And for clarity, look at the generic drug market as an example: When the patent on Viagra ends, can't any generic drug company simply look directly at the molecular structure and copy it? Or do they somehow have to reverse-engineer the drug without looking directly at the precise molecular structure? That doesn't seem to make sense. (Am I making sense?)
Thanks,
-Dave
A patent is for a technology, an idea. But anything that is actually designed by someone is covered by copyright... this information is all available on the internet... Wikipedia for example.
The contents of the ROM chip is covered by the same copyright as the contents of a book, the storage medium is not important.
-
orb85750 wrote:
Belial6 wrote:
Our best hope for getting around the Kickstart hurdle, which as far as I understand it is the only hurdle, is getting the 68k port of AROS back into development. There is a bounty, and an individual has accepted the bounty, but we have heard nothing form him since he accepted it. So, we have no idea whether it is almost complete, not even started, or somewhere in between.
Even if the initial releases are not very compatible with the A Inc kickstart, it would be really good for the MiniMig community if it could be shipped with the an OS so that it booted right out of the box.
Is the resulting product supposed to be an emulation of the Amiga ROM vs. a copy of the ROM?
No the result would be a clone of AmigaOS... something that is functionally the same, but written by someone who has no knowledge of the original work, other than how it is supposed to behave.
-
bloodline wrote:
orb85750 wrote:
I'm still confused about the legal status (but I'm not talking about the software contents on a ROM chip now). Why is it illegal to copy a given (circuit on a) chip verbatim after the patent for that chip has expired? During the patent period, it makes sense that one would have to produce a similarly operating chip by some other means (e.g. when AMD "copies" Intel), but does that hold even after the patent expires? Copyrights on designs never protect you legally against someone else building and selling that product, correct? That's why there are patents for processes and products.
And for clarity, look at the generic drug market as an example: When the patent on Viagra ends, can't any generic drug company simply look directly at the molecular structure and copy it? Or do they somehow have to reverse-engineer the drug without looking directly at the precise molecular structure? That doesn't seem to make sense. (Am I making sense?)
Thanks,
-Dave
A patent is for a technology, an idea. But anything that is actually designed by someone is covered by copyright... this information is all available on the internet... Wikipedia for example.
The contents of the ROM chip is covered by the same copyright as the contents of a book, the storage medium is not important.
You missed my point. I understand your last point, which is why I stated above that I was not referring to the contents of the ROM chip. Yes, I know copyright protects it. But nothing else is protected by the copyright, correct? For example, the physical structure of a chip is not protected and so one can copy the physical structure exactly (once the patent expires)?
-
orb85750 wrote:
bloodline wrote:
orb85750 wrote:
I'm still confused about the legal status (but I'm not talking about the software contents on a ROM chip now). Why is it illegal to copy a given (circuit on a) chip verbatim after the patent for that chip has expired? During the patent period, it makes sense that one would have to produce a similarly operating chip by some other means (e.g. when AMD "copies" Intel), but does that hold even after the patent expires? Copyrights on designs never protect you legally against someone else building and selling that product, correct? That's why there are patents for processes and products.
And for clarity, look at the generic drug market as an example: When the patent on Viagra ends, can't any generic drug company simply look directly at the molecular structure and copy it? Or do they somehow have to reverse-engineer the drug without looking directly at the precise molecular structure? That doesn't seem to make sense. (Am I making sense?)
Thanks,
-Dave
A patent is for a technology, an idea. But anything that is actually designed by someone is covered by copyright... this information is all available on the internet... Wikipedia for example.
The contents of the ROM chip is covered by the same copyright as the contents of a book, the storage medium is not important.
You missed my point. I understand your last point, which is why I stated above that I was not referring to the contents of the ROM chip. Yes, I know copyright protects it. But nothing else is protected by the copyright, correct? For example, the physical structure of a chip is not protected and so one can copy the physical structure exactly (once the patent expires)?
If I were to design a GFX chip, the layout would be copyright to me. Someone could come along and design a chip that does the same thing, but unless they looked at my designs their chip layout would be different, and be covered by their copyright.
-Edit- Drugs are a bit different, you have to follow step synthesis to build the molecule, you can patent the process to make it... companies then try and build similar molecules with similar properties using a different process.
-
A utility patent is 20 years, I believe.
Trade Secrets are protectable.
-
I just found this from lawmart.com:
"The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine."
Note the last part: So anyone could make the chip based on your design (if it's not patented) and sell the resulting product without owing you any royalty. Your copyright protects you against someone else publishing your work, but not against someone producing the product you designed. Only a patent protects you there. (And the maximum patent lifetime is 20 years.)
-
I think that is open to interpretation. If copyright can protect the characters, places and themes in books and films, why not registers and their descriptions in a hardware reference manual?
The subject is kinda mute as no-one is going to produce anything
-
trekiej wrote:
Does anyone know who owns the copyright to the Amiga manuals?
If I were to make an Amiga 2000 from the schematics would that be wrong?
I do not know a whole lot about copyrights.
Any patents on the A2000 have expired, so you are free to build and sell one from scratch (but you can't call it the Amiga 2000, because that's a trademark infringement). However, it is not going to be a useful machine without the kickstart rom. Amiga Inc. owns the copyright on its contents. The copyright on the Amiga manuals also prevents you from republishing their contents. Who owns those copyrights at this point? Don't know. -Dave
-
Right now we have these:
1. Patents
2. Copyrights
3. Trademarks
4. Trade secrets (how something is processed,I think)
How does one find out if the A2000 has a current trademark?
AmigaInc. owns the OS and roms.
-
We actually don't know what the agreement between Gateway and the original Amiga Inc (Amino). There is some evidence that Gateway retain ownership of some or all of Amiga IP (worthless now, it's all over 17 years old), brand and patents and gave the original Amiga Inc exclusive use of these. The Original Amiga Inc transfered this agreement to KMOS (the current Amiga Inc) to avoid creditors and unpaid employees. Whether this was allowed in the agreement with Gateway is unknown. And any action would need to be undertaken by Gateway's parent company Acer. Suffice to say the brand name has been badly sullied by KMOS and is probably not worth fighting over.
As for Kickstart, one could argue that it's part of Amiga OS and that if you legally own a copy of Amiga OS you own the Kickstart that is associated with it. This would be a tough fight in a court since they were separate products, but given that the whole ROM concept was abandoned last century it's hard to tell what a Judge/Jury might rule.
Add that to the fact that Hyperion has a claim to Amiga OS through their contract with the original Amiga Inc and it's subsequent insolvency. The cut and bail to KMOS is a good argument that the original Amiga Inc was indeed insolvent, so it is possible and likely that Hyperion owns OS 4 and the right to use the AmigaOS name.
I think I have a headache....
-
Persia, when did Amiga Inc declare bankruptcy? I must have missed that ...
You do know, don't you, that in order to be declared insolvent, a company must go into receivership?
No. Hyperion Entertainment do not have a claim to Amiga OS. But with any luck, with they stupid legal battle, both Amiga Inc and Hyperion Entertainment will, indeed, go to the wall. Then, Amiga OS will become public domain.
I've come to the conclusion that that is the only ray of hope for my favourite computer ...
-
Haranguer wrote:
Persia, when did Amiga Inc declare bankruptcy? I must have missed that ...
You do know, don't you, that in order to be declared insolvent, a company must go into receivership?
No. Hyperion Entertainment do not have a claim to Amiga OS. But with any luck, with they stupid legal battle, both Amiga Inc and Hyperion Entertainment will, indeed, go to the wall. Then, Amiga OS will become public domain.
I've come to the conclusion that that is the only ray of hope for my favourite computer ...
As much as we all would love AmigaOS to become public domain, I don't see any possibility of it, even in principle. If Amiga Inc. and Hyperion were both to go bankrupt, assets would be sold in the process, including all Amiga trademarks, copyrights, etc. We would have yet another new "owner" of Amiga -- someone or some corporation with a couple million dollars, I suppose.
-
@Haranguer
Depends which US definition of "insolvency" you mean. Amiga Inc were not insolvent by the Bankruptcy Code but WERE INSOLVENT by the Uniform Commercial Code. They were also insolvent in common everyday speech. The contract doesn't specify BC or UCC. US Law is quite different to the Common Law practised here or in the UK.
The absolute joke is that AmigaDos will never generate enough money to pay even a reasonable percentage the lawyers' fees in this case...
-
@trekiej
You can look up patents and registered trademarks in the US at http://www.uspto.gov. Trademarks don't have to be registered, though, which is why people hire attorneys to determine whether or not a particular trademark exists before deciding whether or not to claim it for themselves.
Any work (and "work" has a very loose definition) created by anyone--person, corporation, whatever--is automatically copyrighted. You don't have to claim it, it just is. In the US, the copyright extends 95 years beyond the death of the copyright holder. (Good for your kids, bad for everyone else.) I'm not sure how it works exactly for copyrights owned by non-individuals. I'm sure it's explained somewhere at http://www.uspto.gov.
Trade secrets are the intellectual property, processes, secret handshakes, executive washroom keys, etc. that someone--person, corporation, whatever--has not made public. Sometimes, even "public" information can be considered a trade secret, hence the trouble surrounding leaked details on various Apple products.
Amiga, Inc. (Delaware) owns various Amiga-related trademarks, including one for "providing on-line forums for transmission of messages among computer users concerning computers and computer technology." That means amiga.org, amigaworld.net, et al could, in theory, be subject to a trademark infringement claim if "Amiga" were used without permission.
The orignal Amiga trademark is still listed as being owned by Amiga, Inc. (Washington). Funny how the record was never updated. ;-)
Regarding reverse engineering, read the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering
EDIT: Interesting note: The Workbench trademark was abandoned, so there's probably no reason it couldn't be used by MorphOS, AROS, or another project.
EDIT 2: And someone apparently registered a t-shirt slogan: "AMIGA Ask Me If I Give A-shit"
-
orb85750 wrote:
I just found this from lawmart.com:
"The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine."
Note the last part: So anyone could make the chip based on your design (if it's not patented) and sell the resulting product without owing you any royalty. Your copyright protects you against someone else publishing your work, but not against someone producing the product you designed. Only a patent protects you there. (And the maximum patent lifetime is 20 years.)
I don't think so, I think the design of the custom chips itself is also something copyrightable and if you want to make an exact copy of a certain chip you need to copy the design at some point, e.g. transfer it to the manufacturer etc.
That said, I don't know any custom chip replacement project that is literally copying the original design. They are doing their own design that happen to behave compatible with the original chips. This is not copyrightable. I don't think it is even possible anymore to do a literal copy of the designs as they were done for old technologies.
greets,
Staf.
-
Staf is right, tring to build the original chips from the original designs, using today's technology would be like trying to build a stage coach using only VolksWagen parts... And original Victorian plans!
-
And speaking of trademarks, is it legal to use the term 'amiga' without permission in a domain name that refers to the computer brand? For example, amigastore.com, amigacomputers.com, amigakit.com!
-
bloodline wrote:
Staf is right, tring to build the original chips from the original designs, using today's technology would be like trying to build a stage coach using only VolksWagen parts... And original Victorian plans!
So, you can't build a stagecoach from Volks parts? What kind of hobbyist are you?
The copyright on a circuit design does not prevent others from legally building and selling a final product based on that design. It merely prevents others from publishing your work.
-
@orb85750
I just found this from lawmart.com:
"The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine."
So anyone could make the chip based on your design (if it's not patented) and sell the resulting product without owing you any royalty. Your copyright protects you against someone else publishing your work, but not against someone producing the product you designed. Only a patent protects you there. (And the maximum patent lifetime is 20 years.)
You're confusing patents and copyright, and making incorrect conclusions.
If someone was to produce clones, they need to produce their replacement content. They cannot use the original content (or "form") in the chips.
Example: To produce kickstart replacement you are allowed to use the Autodocs and other documentation about the functionality as a base of your clone, even though the autodocs and documentation themselves are copyrighted (obviously you cannot use any of that copyrighted material directly, but the knowledge you gain from the docs is not copyrighted. This is what the original quote of "For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine." means).
You're allowed to reverse engineer the original binary and produce a code that does the same (the limitations on reverse engineering depend on local law, EU has less restrictions than USA for example).
Such reverse engineering was done while making MorphOS (and AROS).
Patents may prevent some things being cloned, however. For example MorphOS (and probably AROS, too) intuition didn't support toggling multiple menu items while the menu was open. This particular patent has expired now, and multiselection is possible in the latest MorphOS versions.
-
Piru wrote:
@orb85750
I just found this from lawmart.com:
"The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine."
So anyone could make the chip based on your design (if it's not patented) and sell the resulting product without owing you any royalty. Your copyright protects you against someone else publishing your work, but not against someone producing the product you designed. Only a patent protects you there. (And the maximum patent lifetime is 20 years.)
You're confusing patents and copyright, and making incorrect conclusions.
If someone was to produce clones, they need to produce their replacement content. They cannot use the original content (or "form") in the chips.
Example: To produce kickstart replacement you are allowed to use the Autodocs and other documentation about the functionality as a base of your clone, even though the autodocs and documentation themselves are copyrighted (obviously you cannot use any of that copyrighted material directly, but the knowledge you gain from the docs is not copyrighted. This is what the original quote of "For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine." means).
You're allowed to reverse engineer the original binary and produce a code that does the same (the limitations on reverse engineering depend on local law, EU has less restrictions than USA for example).
Such reverse engineering was done while making MorphOS (and AROS).
Patents may prevent some things being cloned, however. For example MorphOS (and probably AROS, too) intuition didn't support toggling multiple menu items while the menu was open. This particular patent has expired now, and multiselection is possible in the latest MorphOS versions.
No, your statements have little to do with mine. Read my statements more carefully. I had already made clear previously that one could not make and sell a direct copy of the AmigaOS or any other content stored on some medium, such as a ROM, a book, CD, etc. However, that does *not* address whether one may use a physical circuit design to produce a microchip based exactly on that design. If the design is not or is no longer patented (and patents have a very finite lifetime), then a copyright will not legally prevent a chip manufacturer from using the design to make the chip. Correct?
-
@orb85750
The chip manufacturer is subject to the design copyright. The Manufacturer needs the right to copy the design from the copyright holder... Piru has explained all this :-?
-Edit-
A patent could cover the method to make the chip... not the actual design...
As an example, you could patent the method to make a jumper, and copyright the design of the jumper... get it?
-
bloodline wrote:
@orb85750
The chip manufacturer is subject to the design copyright. The Manufacturer needs the right to copy the design from the copyright holder... Piru has explained all this :-?
-Edit-
A patent could cover the method to make the chip... not the actual design...
As an example, you could patent the method to make a jumper, and copyright the design of the jumper... get it?
I still don't get it. What you're saying is that since the Wheatstone Bridge (or some other circuit design) was published in a copyrighted work, nobody is allowed to build and sell it? For how many years? That does not appear to be the case, right?
-
bloodline wrote:
@orb85750
The chip manufacturer is subject to the design copyright. The Manufacturer needs the right to copy the design from the copyright holder... Piru has explained all this :-?
No, anyone may manufacture the chip based on the design, unless it is patented. A copyright does not protect against the implementation of the design. Furthermore, copyrights do not protect physical devices. Therefore, one may make an exact copy of an unpatented chip, for example, provided that it does not contain copyrighted "software" -- one cannot make an exact copy of a ROM containing OS3.1!
-
orb85750 wrote:
bloodline wrote:
@orb85750
The chip manufacturer is subject to the design copyright. The Manufacturer needs the right to copy the design from the copyright holder... Piru has explained all this :-?
No, anyone may manufacture the chip based on the design, unless it is patented. A copyright does not protect against the implementation of the design. Furthermore, copyrights do not protect physical devices. Therefore, one may make an exact copy of an unpatented chip, for example, provided that it does not contain copyrighted "software" -- one cannot make an exact copy of a ROM containing OS3.1!
I'll try and make it simple:
I write a poem, the poem is the design, that is covered by copyright. The method I used to write the poem is the process, that could be covered by a patent.
-
Your analogies with artistic works are completely irrelevant. I gave concrete examples, which you have not addressed. Do you honestly believe what you are telling me at this point? Is it illegal to build a Wheatstone Bridge circuit?
From Bitlaw.com:
DEVICES ARE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM COPYRIGHT PROTECTION:
" Ideas, procedures, principles, discoveries, and devices are all specifically excluded from copyright protection. As stated in the Copyright Act:
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
This specific exclusion helps maintain the distinction between copyright protection and patent law. Ideas and inventions are the subject matter for patents, while the expression of ideas is governed by copyright law. If copyright were extended to protect ideas, principles and devices, then it would be possible to circumvent the rigorous prerequisites of patent law and secure protection for an invention merely by describing the invention in a copyrightable work."
-
You have answered your own question... but because it doesn't say what you want it to... you ignore it! :-?
-
This seems to be degenerating, as you become more and more cryptic. I honestly have no idea what you mean or the question to which you refer. Maybe this one ---> What is the answer to: whether it is legal to build a Wheatstone Bridge circuit? If it is legal, explain why. If not, explain why. (If you are able.)
-
If anyone was considering selling anything Amiga related do not rely on any posts on this forum (or any other) about legal issues. Consult an IP & copyright lawyer.
-
@orb85750
Define "chip design".
I think this is what is confusing everyone here. In my opinion that includes the content of the chip (the copyrighted material).
I think your definition is different?
-
Piru wrote:
@orb85750
Define "chip design".
I think this is what is confusing everyone here. In my opinion that includes the content of the chip (the copyrighted material).
I think your definition is different?
Right, I think I stated previously (twice) that a copyright does protect any software stored on the chip -- of course. However, nothing else about the chip can be protected by anything other than a patent, if one is granted. (Circuits cannot be protected by copyright law, but the *publication* of the schematics can be protected.)
-
@orb85750
Right, I think I stated previously (twice) that a copyright does protect any software stored on the chip -- of course. However, nothing else about the chip can be protected by anything other than a patent, if one is granted.
Fair enough so far.
Circuits cannot be protected by copyright law, but the *publication* of the schematics can be protected.
But what if the circuit is the software? Say custom chips such as Agnus or Denise? I'm fairly certain that here the actual circuit is copyrighted. Circuit board or schematics, aren't they just two different ways to represent the same thing?
The actual transistors, gates and methods of putting them together are not copyrighted, but might be covered by patents.
-
While that is a reasonable question, everything I've read so far on the legal websites mentioned in my previous posts indicates that electronic devices (including circuit boards) cannot be protected by copyright. Again, the Wheatstone Bridge example . . . Even if the circuit were published in some manual covered by copyright, devices may be built using that *exact* circuit design. -Dave
-
The method of operation of the circuit can be patented. The design, the pattern, of the components is covered by copy right!
It doesn't matter if you are drawing a cartoon or drawing a circuit, both designs are covered by copyright.
The method used to make the circuit or print the cartoon is covered by a patent... Clearer now?
-
Again -- and now I am repeating myself for sure -- devices are specifically exempted from copyright law. You would have an uphill battle in court arguing that your circuit board is not an electronic device, but is instead the "medium" for your copyrighted work! I suppose an artist could produce a circuit board for display that is a "work of art" (not a useful electronic device) and therefore could be covered by copyright law, but that is not relevant to our discussion. Got it now?
-
bloodline wrote:
The method of operation of the circuit can be patented. The design, the pattern, of the components is covered by copy right!
It doesn't matter if you are drawing a cartoon or drawing a circuit, both designs are covered by copyright.
The method used to make the circuit or print the cartoon is covered by a patent... Clearer now?
1) Patents for 20-year old technology have all expired, so patents are not relevant to our discussion, even if they did exist at one time.
2) I suggest you read up on the limitations of copyright protection before posting again.
-
@orb85750
Again -- and now I am repeating myself for sure -- devices are specifically exempted from copyright law. You would have an uphill battle in court arguing that your circuit board is not an electronic device, but is instead the "medium" for your copyrighted work!
I'm sorry but you're seriously confused here. The "device" in this copyright exception is not what you think it is. I suggest your read those passages again with thought ("What else could 'the device' mean here?").
Copyright doesn't depend on the form of the "writing". Be it on paper, on electronic media, or on a circuit board: The copyright is always the same, regardless.
Anything else would open a gaping hole that could be used to circumvent copyright.
-
Do you do agree that anyone may build such a device exactly according to a given schematic, provided that there is no patent granted (or pending) for the design?
Would you tell me explicitly what you mean about the 'device' definition ambiguity?
-
Does this help:
Semiconductor and Chip Protection Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_Chip_Protection_Act_of_1984)
"It has some aspects of copyright law, some aspects of patent law, and in some ways it is completely different from either."
"The owner of mask work rights may pursue an alleged infringer ("chip pirate") by bringing an action for mask work infringement in federal district court. The remedies available correspond generally to those of copyright law and patent law."
You're both right you see.
Then there is the unwritten law of "you steal my stuff and I break your nose". Or shoot you (legal in some states of the US apparently /just joking)
-
alexh wrote:
If anyone was considering selling anything Amiga related do not rely on any posts on this forum (or any other) about legal issues. Consult an IP & copyright lawyer.
Yes, especially considering the fact laws differ between countries. The worst possible country to develop/sell clones from a legal point of view would be in USA.
-
One also has to realise the threat of a lawsuit is enough. The Amiga market is extremely tiny, a lawsuit could easily consume any profit a company could hope to make. The possible penalty outweighs the possible reward...
-
@orb85750
Do you do agree that anyone may build such a device exactly according to a given schematic, provided that there is no patent granted (or pending) for the design?
I don't. Assuming the design is not public domain, or that the design is not licensed properly, then it would be copyright infringement. This is how I see it: whether as printed schematic or as circuit board it's just representation of the same thing. Then again IANAL.
I guess it depends on if the hardware is deemed to contain "a program", written work in itself. Something like a ROM chip certainly does (the actual ROM content is included in the mask of the ROM). Empty (E)EPROM or flash chip doesn't.
-
Fortunately, IANAL either! Anyway, thanks for the thought-provoking discussion. And thanks to gertsy for the useful wikipedia link. Interesting that ICs are considered so unique in that they deserve a special law beyond patents and copyrights. -Dave