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.
> 
> No. Quite different.
> You can have all the netlists, diagrams or descriptions that you want and
> NEVER have the circuit. The circuit is the living breathing thing. 
> 
> In the case of a novel, there is no product that is not embodied wholly
> in the intangibles. You can recite a novel or send it by light wave, or
> gravity wave or ... and it is THE novel that you are dealing with. 

You seem to be saying that the work the (layout and other) artists puts
into selecting the correct format, font, cover illustration, color, page
layout and other elements of a specific realization of a novel are nothing
WRT the novel. I disagree (and so probably does the publisher, who spends
his money on this). There is "THE novel" as you call it, which is something
that nobody ever "has", a concept, and there are the different realizations
of that novel -- which are what you can get. In that sense there is no
difference between a circuit diagram and a written page. Both convey an
idea of something, in a symbolic language. 

If that's not clear enough, take a play. There is quite some difference
between "THE play" (the author's idea), the manuscript the author produced
based on "THE play", the book you bought in the store, and the play you
watched on Saturday evening. 

The only one that creates a copyright is the author's manuscript. The sold
book is considered a derived work (usually very close to the original), and
so is the play you watched (to a lesser degree, but still).

> In the case of the circuit it is the actual "machine" that is involved. 

Yes and no. You brought it in, and there is some merit to that, in some
respects. But what if I don't bring it in? So far, I was talking about the
circuit, nothing else, not the product where this circuit may be used. A
circuit as idea definitely exists, and there are different languages to
express it. There is no need, for this discussion, to bring in the rest of
the machine, the parts that are not described in the circuit. Just stick to
what's described in the circuit.

> You may intangibly describe it to your hearts intent, and it is not the
> thing per se that you are dealing with but a description of it. You
> cannot send a Schmitt trigger by way of a system that conveys only
> information - but you can send a description of it.

That goes for pretty much everything, no? You always only send a
description of it if you only send information, you never send the thing
itself. Goes just the same for a novel. You may equate "THE novel" with its
description -- but if you can't decode the description I send you, you see
the difference :)

> You don't have to like this distinction, and you may have opinions about
> what should or shouldn't be protectable, but hopefully this vital
> differrence betwixt novel and multivibrator is clear.

No, not at all. It's not a matter of liking it or not, it's that copyright
(differently from patents) has nothing to do with what you can do with the
work (build a product, print a book, perform a play, whatever), so what you
can or not do with it doesn't seem to be substantial for any discussion of
copyright.

Gerhard

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