nanog mailing list archives
Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:49:20 -0800
Copyright law basically says that if there is any substantive creative input into a work's creation then the work is not only copyrightable, unless the author explicitly says different it's also copyrighted. Throw a paint filled balloon at a canvas and the resulting splatter is copyrighted. Consider: do more unforced choices, more optional choices, more creative choices go in to the production of a router configuration? Of course they do. One can be snobbish about whether that qualifies as art, but it's certainly intellectual property (IP).
This assumes that Copyright is the only IP protection out there. There are actually two distinct realms of IP protection afforded in the US. Most other nations have a similar division. Copyright is for works of original creation, but cannot cover a process, practice, or device. Patents, on the other hand, cover processes, practices, and devices, etc. On a theoretical level, a network design and/or it’s documentation, configuration files, etc. could be and likely are copyright(-able,-ed). On a theoretical level, if you come up with some truly novel non-obvious reduction to practice of some particular process, you might well be able to patent it. While independent creation is a defense for copyright, it is irrelevant to a patent. Prior art can be a valid defense for a patent, but independently arriving at the same conclusion from independent development is not, in itself, a valid defense. (Showing that the patent is obvious, a minimal evolutionary step, or other such trivialization can be a valid defense.) However, all of the technicalities on this stuff vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The broad strokes have been normalized through treaties for the most part, but details and technicalities still vary quite a bit. As such, if it really matters, get good local legal advice from all involved countries. Owen
Current thread:
- [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design, (continued)
- [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design William Waites (Feb 13)
- Message not available
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design William Herrin (Feb 13)
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 13)
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design William Herrin (Feb 13)
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 13)
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Rafael Possamai (Feb 13)
- RE: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Ahad Aboss (Feb 13)
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Skeeve Stevens (Feb 14)
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 14)
- Message not available
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design William Herrin (Feb 14)
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Owen DeLong (Feb 14)
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design William Herrin (Feb 15)
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Jack Bates (Feb 15)
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 15)
- Message not available
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Larry Sheldon (Feb 15)
- Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Skeeve Stevens (Feb 12)
- Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Randy Bush (Feb 12)
- Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Michael Butler (Feb 12)
- Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Mark Tinka (Feb 12)
- Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Randy Bush (Feb 12)