Apptech wrote:

> Apart from the fact that I believe (possibly incorrectly) that they are
> treated differently, regardless of why: 

This is the question I'd like to understand -- treated differently in what
respect, and then possibly why (if that exists).


> The novel IS the words. Spoken or written or whatever they are
> embodiments of the actual IP concerned. 

The circuit is the nodes and their connections. As diagram, as netlist, or
whatever -- they are embodiments of the actual IP concerned.

> You may not copy it in any medium without needing to deal with its
> copyright status. Photographed, sung, spoken, transcribed to Braille, or
> Morse or Cuneiform it is still copyright. 

Why wouldn't the same apply to a circuit?

> The circuit diagram is not the circuit. 

The book I bought in the store is not the novel.

> The diagram is protected because it has strayed into the
> literary/artistic realm where copyright is king.

This would be the same as saying "the book is protected because it has
strayed into the literary/artistic realm where copyright is king" -- which
seems not correct, because copyright doesn't really care about literature,
art or similar concepts. The content of books that nobody would mention in
the same sentence with literature or art is protected by copyright.

> The circuit proper lives in the world of patent or perhaps no protection
> at all. 

What's the difference between the novel (the one that IS the words, not the
one I bought in the store -- that is, the concept, not the realization) and
the circuit proper (the one that IS the nodes and their relations, not any
specific manifestation as diagram or netlist -- that is, the concept of the
circuit, not its realization)? If the copyright protects the "novel proper"
-- that is, not only the specific realization that I bought in the store,
but all equivalent realizations and even the ones that are not equivalent
but have a degree of equivalency that is considered high enough (like just
changing a few words here and there) --, why wouldn't it protect the
"circuit proper"?

> You cannot (AFAIK) patent a novel and you cannot (AFAIK) copyright a
> circuit per se. 

Agreed.

> I also think (BIMBW) that you cannot patent a circuit per se but can
> patent concepts which are embodied in a circuit. 

You may be able to patent concepts which are embodied in a circuit, and you
may be able to patent concepts which are embodied in a novel. This doesn't
depend on whether the concepts are embodied in a novel or in a circuit or
in a pile of sand, this solely depends on the concepts themselves.

> If a circuit implements a patented concept then another circuit that is
> identical to it will implement the patented concept and will therefore
> be covered by the patent and so to that extent the circuit is protected
> by patent. 

This is one corner where the analogy ends, but only in terms of patents
(which is not really what I was asking about).

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist