Re: Copyrighting/Patenting a Conlang

Christophe Grandsire scripsit:

> Really? I thought private use was outside the scope of copyright. After
> all, you *are* allowed to make a copy of a works for private use.
> Everything I know about American copyright law is that private use is an
> exception.
Not that either.  I can't make a copy of a book I own for private use, for
then I could sell the book to someone else (the first-sale doctrine) and
keep the copy for myself, to the detriment of the author/publisher.  This
is hard to enforce, but it is the law.

The Supreme Court held that broadcast TV programs may be taped for private
use, but that is a special case.

> >The name "Klingon" is trademarked; a trademark must actually be used in
> >trade, in this case to sell the dictionary and various other things.
> >The words of Klingon are not trademarked, and probably cannot be
> >copyrighted either, at least in the U.S.
>
> I thought they were already, and that it was a problem for personal works
> made in Klingon.
By no means.  The notion that a list of words and their definitions can
constitute an individual copyright on each word is preposterous (which
doesn't mean that some people don't hold it, notably the self-appointed
defenders of the Tolkien Estate).

> Patents are really going out of control. Time for the US to stop it or they
> are gonna paralyse their own economy under an impossible justice system.
Amen.  In Australia we already have the patented method of swinging on a swing,
owned by a patent lawyer's kid.

> But that's only because of the obvious origin of the name. If Loglan had
> been called "Milthannezic", I think the trademark would have been possible.
Perhaps, and that would prevent the Lojban community from calling *its*
competing grammars and dictionaries "Milthannezic".  It would not prevent us from
saying that Lojban is an instance of Milthannezic, which is what we wanted.

> >In the U.S. you can collect the entire damages from whoever revealed the
> >secret (provided they have it, of course).
>
> But how do you calculate such damage? :) And if the robber is unsolvable,
> what do you do?
You lose, of course.  But as for calculating damages, we ask a jury to
calculate them, and as long as the results are not *utterly* unsupported by
the evidence, we accept them.  This is rough-and-ready empiricism, but it works.

--
Knowledge studies others / Wisdom is self-known;      John Cowan
Muscle masters brothers / Self-mastery is bone;       jcowan@reutershealth.com
Content need never borrow / Ambition wanders blind;   www.ccil.org/~cowan
Vitality cleaves to the marrow / Leaving death behind.    --Tao 33 (Bynner)