Legal Status of Amiga Clones (past and present)

[orb85750]

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?

[orb85750]

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!

[bloodline]

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.

[orb85750]

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."

[bloodline]

You have answered your own question... but because it doesn't say what you want it to... you ignore it! :-?

[orb85750]

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.)  

[alexh]

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.

[Piru]

@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?

[orb85750]

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.)

[Piru]

@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.

[orb85750]

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

[bloodline]

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?

[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 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?

[orb85750]

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.

[Piru]

@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.

[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?  

Would you tell me explicitly what you mean about the 'device' definition ambiguity?