Dear Roy and the group:

As you know, my other job is that of a patent attorney. It is time to
comment.

We are not concerned with patents. It is common to overlap patent
protection of something useful with copyright protection of an expression.
This is more common when software is involved because a patent might involve
software and Congress has made it clear that software is amiable of
copyright protection.

As you have observed, a copyright notice is no longer required.
However, I always tell clients to provide such a notice. Judges, most
reasonably, may wonder why a notice was not provided when to do so costs (in
most cases) nothing and the absence of a notice can cause mischief. The
requirement not to require notices was due to pressure from European
interests.

If one thinks one will need to defend one's copyright, it is beneficial
to register the copyright with the Copyright Office (part of the Library of
Congress) - a simple process.

Let us turn to what copyright is: it is the right to prevent the making
of copies of a work by others. One who holds a copyright to a work has the
right to control copies of that work. Congress and the courts have carved
out some exceptions. We have seen one used here where one copies small
sections of a copyrighted book or paper. Researchers and universities are
given some narrow rights to copy the works of others. In a law suit, an
important aspect is the degree that someone's unauthorized copying has
actually injured the copyright owner.

Absent a specific contract to the contrary, one who legally purchases a
copyrighted work may sell it, destroy it, read it if it can be read, and run
it on a computer if it is software. Such a lawful copy may be used to
facilitate the crafting of another work (such as using WordPerfect to write
a letter) or may be used to facilitate the fabrication of useful articles
(such as the use of EZNEC to design an antenna that is improved in some
way).


Let us keep patent protection and copyright protection in their separate
cages.

To the issue of the French radio amateur who started this long string
(and with a nod to the opinion of the experienced radio amateur in the UK):
optimization of more than simple antennas still requires the intersession of
a thoughtful and experienced human. My experience has been that the human's
main contribution relates to crafting an adaptive notion of what optimum is,
for the subject antenna. In other words: knowing when further playing is
not appropriate.

73, Mac N8TT
--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Tom Ring wrote:

That's all there is in either version of YO that contains the
"copyright" in any form, case insensitive. I am ignoring the companion
programs. Interestingly, the .EXE files do not include a copyright
notice internal to the program, at least in plain text. The only thing
that shows when running the program (v6.x) is "Copyright 1995 by Brian
Beezley, K6STI All Rights Reserved" at the top line on the files menu.
I am writing the last from memory since it's a DOS program, so I might
not have it perfect.

Under current U.S. law, a copyright notice isn't required in order to
secure a copyright; the copyright automatically exists as soon as the
work is created. Adding a copyright notice does bring some advantages
if a lawsuit is filed, however.

Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL