On Jan 20, 8:55=A0am, "bill.mart...{at}gmail.com"

wrote:
> Bill,
>
> It is also related to the statute of limitations in infringement
> cases. =A0The judge usually has the discretion to decide exactly when to
> establish as the beginning of the infringement. This is why it is
> dangerous to assume that there will be no damages if there is no
> commercial market.
>
> Here is a link to a good blog on just that specific topic:
> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/05/statute-of-
> limitations-part-one.html">http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/05/
> statute-of-limitations-part-one.html
>
> --billm--- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The Canadian Statute is:

41. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a court may not award a remedy in
relation to an infringement unless

(a) in the case where the plaintiff knew, or could reasonably have
been expected to know, of the infringement at the time it occurred,
the proceedings for infringement are commenced within three years
after the infringement occurred; or

(b) in the case where the plaintiff did not know, and could not
reasonably have been expected to know, of the infringement at the time
it occurred, the proceedings for infringement are commenced within
three years after the time when the plaintiff first knew, or could
reasonably have been expected to know, of the infringement.

Restriction

(2) The court shall apply the limitation period set out in paragraph
(1)(a) or (b) only in respect of a party who pleads a limitation
period.


---

So clearly in Canada the Copyright holder has 3 years from the
discovery to take action. If the Copyright holder waits over 3 years
then the onus is then on the defendant to plead that the limitation
period has been exceeded.  At that point the court will not award a
remedy. This means that the defendant needs to know the law and the
Copyright holder cannot dangle indecisively like the sword of Domocles
in-perpetuity.

However, despite that which is not discretionary here, in Canada the
use of Copyrighted material for research and private study is my right
until proven wrong in a court of law, which is all that I am saying.

I guess that since a compiler interface is not unique, one could also
argue that nothing is sufficiently original about any compiler to make
it Copyrightable at all. We still haven't explored that. I think that
would be a great defense to test.

If all a compiler does is build an object module then what
differentiates the compiler sufficiently from another compiler to
deserve a Copyright? Not the interface surely, and not the output
either. I believe the other parts are patentable if in fact they have
not already been patented by others. So then what parts are protected
by Copyright?

I mean, really, at a certain point this is all too ridiculous, and
perhaps a good reason for a private study would be to investigate why
a compiler is copyrighted at all by comparing it to all other
compilers to see if any in fact merit Copyright or their interfaces
are in fact in violation of each others Copyright.

I guess the next step would be for you and I to take a picture of the
sky and then sue each other for Copyright violation.

Perhaps a better test of Copyright would be the one with the ability
to market the picture of the sky or perhaps parts of the sky will be
copyrighted like my cloud and your cloud.

Then I would shout "Hey! You! Get off of my Cloud!":)

Oops! Mick and the boys will be suing me next...

Bill
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32