Search for: "Baker v. Selden" Results 21 - 40 of 63
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jun 2012, 12:34 pm by Bruce Boyden
Tim Wu had an interesting op-ed column in Wednesday’s New York Times: Free Speech for Computers? [read post]
22 Jun 2012, 12:35 pm by Bruce E. Boyden
Tim Wu had an interesting op-ed column in Wednesday’s New York Times: Free Speech for Computers? [read post]
12 May 2014, 12:30 pm by Dennis Crouch
Selden that copyrights protects expression in works of authorship and patents protect utilitarian designs. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 4:46 am
 The judge considered the following issues in coming to the conclusion that copyright did not subsist in the copied code:Declaring Source CodeMerger doctrine - the merger doctrine, established in Baker v Selden 101 US 99 (1879), disallows exclusive ownership of the expression. [read post]
30 Apr 2016, 4:04 am by Andres
Vocabulary and grammar are no more protectable than the bookkeeping system in Baker v. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 11:09 am by Eric
* Copyright geeks, rejoice—a full scan of Selden's Condensed Ledger (1861) from Baker v. [read post]
27 Nov 2015, 1:00 am by Jani Ihalainen
Baker v Selden, dealing with the protection (or lack thereof) for a book-keeping system, and Palmer v Braun, dealing with the protectability of meditation exercises, illustrate the unavailability of copyright protection for ideas, even if they are 'expressed' in some sort of tangible form.Ultimately, the Sequence was deemed to be not protected by copyright. [read post]
10 May 2014, 6:51 am
In more general terms, does this decision imply a re-thinking of both earlier case law on computer programs and the idea/expression dichotomy, starting with the seminal decision in Baker v Selden? [read post]
25 Mar 2019, 7:07 am
Menell and David Nimmer in a separate submission also highlight inconsistency with SCOTUS’s seminal decision in Baker v. [read post]
10 May 2014, 12:23 am by Florian Mueller
At any rate, the Supreme Court was divided over that one.A long, long time ago there was Baker v. [read post]