New answers tagged

1

united-kingdom Under the Borders, Citizenship, and Immigration Act 2009, ss 14 et seq, the wrongful disclosure of information gained by a customs officer in their search is a criminal offence. Thus, the misuse of your information (ie, your ideas) would not be lawful. However, the problem is that UK Border Force Officers wear two hats: they are both customs ...


3

Mere ideas are not, as others have said, protected by copyright. However, the police officer in such a situation may have a duty of confidentiality, particularly if s/he is informed that the contents of the phone are confidential. For example the "Officer's Code of Conduct" of Canton Ohio, says: Whatever a Police Officer sees, hears or learns of ...


2

can I sue them for stealing my idea? england-and-wales The case of Oxford v Moss 1979 established that information, in and of itself, cannot be stolen. So, in a answer to the question posed: No However, a civil claim may be appropriate if the officer has been found guilty of either a criminal offence, such as s.1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 or of (gross-)...


2

Your ideas for startups or inventions might qualify as trade secrets. Trade secret law is not uniform internationally so this might or might not help you.


0

united-statescopyright Ideas are not copyrightable In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. 17 USC 102 Copyright only is ...


0

This is all state law v. 1A, and in many places hasn't been litigated to a point to generate useful precedent but.... There's mostly a recognized difference between editorial usage and commercial usage. Even advertising an editorial product can be protected editorial usage. Read Namath v. Sports Illustrated as well as Montana v. San Jose Mercury News.


2

“Principles” are not protectable by copyright, just their expression. A clever hardware concept will not be covered by copyright but a white paper describing it would be. Also, just like software, the VHDL code or schematic diagram defining a hardware design is protected by copyright. It doesn’t protect the circuit, just the particular representation of the ...


0

If the image is a selfie, you need the permission of the subject. Otherwise, you need the permission of the photographer (or the person, if he hired a photographer to take his shot). You might edit the actual question to narrow the scope of the question. Apart from copyright, there is a concern over "right of publicity", which could limit use of ...


0

Yes. The First Amendment generally prohibits public figures from policing the use of their images.


1

the company can seize any IP that I "conceived" before employment and didn't notify the employer about? Only if your pre-existing IP could be reasonably alleged to have ensued pursuant to your employment. Your notification preemptively strikes the presumption that that IP ensued during employment. IP (pre-existing or otherwise) that clearly is ...


2

Regarding patents, there is not likely to be a patent covering the whole thing but there might be patents covering aspects of it. It will be a very cursory view but you can use google patents to look for patents assigned to apple with key words that hit in relevant concepts. Regarding copyright, the clone PC BIOS’s used a clean room design process to develop ...


0

written works including software are protected by copyright That means you can’t copy them or make a derivative work from them. So, for example, your shaft ware can have a ‘Filter’ and ‘Kernel’, they just can’t use any of the same code. They can implement the same functionality but you would need to write the code to do it from scratch.


-1

Great answers and comments! Thank you! I'm still working on putting it all together, along with some more of my own observations of practicality, but I think I'm getting enough of a gel to put it out for comment. (My way of thinking requires a single overarching concept to base everything on, and then the rest becomes relatively easy. Without that, it's ...


0

So here is how you do it according to the playbook: You make a market analysis first (which you probably did) and write your business plan Then you build the prototype (which you are doing now) You file a patent with help of a good patent lawyer (assume 3-4k USD, not 100% on that number), probably US and EU (there is also a provision you can file in another ...


1

In general, if a person or firm uses a trademark, or a word, phrase, logo, or symbol that is similar to a trademark to promote, market, or identify goods or services (products), and reasonable consumers could be confused into falsely thinking that the products come from the same source as that identified with the trademark, or are approved, endorsed or ...


3

How much do I have to change it to make it mine, and thus disregard a license that I received it under? 100%. You can't claim ownership over someone else's work. The only ways to make it "yours" are for it to be your sole creation or for the owner to explicitly transfer ownership to you. If you could disregard a license by making enough ...


2

It is a considerable practice to file a PCT application instead of a national patent application as it allows considerable extra time and a more streamlined process to nationalize the patents in party States. It is also expected that the Unitary Patent PAP-Protocol, a provisional phase will be up and running some time next June as Germany cleared up some ...


6

While it is quite true, as the answer by Ron Trunk says, that the creator of a derivative work only owns the copyright on parts added to or changed from the source work, it is also true that the owner of the copyright on the source work has a degree of control over even the new parts of the derivative work. Specifically these rights are, for US law stated in ...


11

What you are missing is that the original copyright holder can give permission to make derivative works with strings attached. There is no automatic right to derive something from a copyrighted work. Those strings could include constraints on what you create in the process of making the derivative work. Yes it is a string limiting what you can do with ...


5

Fortunately for your moral sense, copyright law (at least in the U.S) seems to follow your second "understanding." Original works are owned (and copyrightable) by the creator. If you change or add something to an original work, you create a derivative work, and the new parts are copyrightable by you; the original parts still belong to the ...


Top 50 recent answers are included