On 11/6/2016 2:22 PM, David Starner
wrote:
On the face of it, the cited statement seems
to very broadly reject the copyrightability of alphabets and writing
systems, tracing that decision back to statements of intent
around the copyright legislation. Given that, I'd tend to concur with Doug that UTC should feel free to discuss this on the merit, but that in the case of a positive outcome the Consortium would of course have counsel review this issue. Given that this won't be the only writing system for which the original invention post-dates modern IP laws, it would probably be good to have some clarity here. A./ |
- RE: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back Peter Constable
- RE: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back Shawn Steele
- Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back Mark Davis ☕️
- Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back Philippe Verdy
- Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back Mark E. Shoulson
- RE: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes B... Peter Constable
- Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back Mark E. Shoulson
- Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back Doug Ewell
- Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back Mark E. Shoulson
- Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back David Starner
- Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back Asmus Freytag
- Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back Mark E. Shoulson
- Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back Julian Bradfield
- Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back Mark E. Shoulson
- RE: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back Doug Ewell
- Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back gfb hjjhjh
- RE: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back Doug Ewell