On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 11:01 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: [ . . . ] > If you copy something, there is usually evidence that you did so, like a > lack of development of your code (all of a sudden, a complete working > version was checked in!). But besides that, if you have a track record of > never reading competitor's source, and the evidence supports that, then I > don't see how the judge cannot reverse the ruling.
It's all down to balance of probabilities, at least in the UK. Just because there is a history of not copying in the past doesn't necessarily mean you didn't this time. > This newsgroup would serve as good evidence that Walter does not look at > others' source. Actually I suspect not per se, but it might add weight to other evidence. > The fact that the code is available does not make it likely that you > copied it! You can't just publish code and then claim any similar code > *must* be yours because it's impossible for someone not to look at your > code. People aren't convicted on "possibilities" they are convicted on > proof. The interesting question is what constitutes proof. I am not a lawyer so cannot give you a full answer but having been an expert witness on a fairly regular basis I can tell you most of these things are in the end settled by the two expert witnesses in their joint report -- at least in the UK. > I'm not sure how Europe's copyright laws work, but in the US, if you > didn't copy it, it doesn't violate copyright law. You can't copy > something that you don't have the original for, so even if your work > appears very similar (as code very often does -- styles are similar, > algorithms usually are the same, etc.), it's not copying unless you had > access to the source *AND* copied it. I suspect us having these sorts of debate is fairly fruitless unless we have some practicing copyright lawyers on the list who can advise us. When it comes to issues of these sort the gossip of programmers who have not had pupilage in copyright law in the jurisdiction you are operating in tends to be misdirected. > If in Europe, the only evidence a judge looks at is if the code is > similar, I'm glad I don't live in Europe... Judges don't look at evidence such as this expert witnesses do. What is so good about the USA system that makes the various European systems something you wish to avoid? What really worries me about exchanges such as this is that people make statements from position of insufficient knowledge, possibly in entirely good faith, but they nonetheless give people the wrong impression of reality. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part