3 ms·

Clean rooms protect from patent issues, but do little to protect against copyright or trademark actions. The fact that one creates totally new code from scratc

Clean rooms protect from patent issues, but do little to protect against copyright or trademark actions. The fact that one creates totally new code from scratch means nothing if the end product is too similar to the existing copyrighted work.

kevinmchugh 3y ago
No, clean rooms are a mechanism that allows a team to avoid copyright infringement by ensuring that the developers have never seen the copyrighted code.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  The code avoids copyright, if it is actually different. The end product doesn't if it is still similar to the copyrighted work. Use a computer to rewrite Harry Potter all you want, but if it comes up with the same book it doesn't matter how you got there.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - marcinzm 3y ago
    That's not a clean room implementation. A clean room would be having a description for the game of quidditch (game rules are not copyrightable just like specifications for software) and then writing a background story to explain it without ever having read a single word of Harry Potter. If that comes out anywhere similar to the Harry Potter books I'd be utterly amazed.
    - sandworm101 3y ago
      >> If that comes out anywhere similar to the Harry Potter books I'd be utterly amazed. Considering that "Harry Potter" is not an uncommon name in the UK (I've met two) nor is the concept of a wizard school, or riding broomsticks, or house teams, I suspect that AI today might be able to generate something that would get Rowling's attention.
      - marcinzm 3y ago
        Rowling has been sued multiple times for the similarity of Harry Potter to previous books using those themes. She won every time. The bar for copyright infringement is not "a single piece of the book is similar" or even "a one sentence summary of the two is similar."
  - kevinmchugh 3y ago
    In Sony v Connectix a judge found that software designed for compatibility deserved less protection than literary works.
marcinzm 3y ago
That's literally the exact opposite of reality: > Clean-room design is useful as a defense against copyright infringement because it relies on independent creation. However, because independent invention is not a defense against patents, clean-room designs typically cannot be used to circumvent patent restrictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
- sandworm101 3y ago
  In code, not end product. You can reverse engineer code all day, but your end product better not end up looking identical to the protected work. I could set a thousand AI machines in a clean room generating new song lyrics. Eventually one of them will randomly come up with identical lyrics to a Taylor Swift song. That doesn't mean I now own those lyrics free and clear. "Technically, I didn't copy" isn't a defense when you try to sell an identical product. It can be a defense in patent areas where one wants to argue prior art or obviousness.
  - marcinzm 3y ago
    I'm just pointing out that your statement was 100% incorrect in every single possible setting. A clean room is NEVER a possible defense for patents and it is sometimes a possible defense for copyright.
    - sandworm101 3y ago
      Except if you are going for obviousness you want to start with people who haven't seen the patented material. You put them in the metaphorical clean room and then argue the patent invalid because some rando people came up with the same solution to the problem. And for prior art you need a group of "clean" people who were using the process/device prior to the patent, which is especially useful when dealing with trade secret material that, fearing a leak, a competitor is trying to patent. You need people clean of any taint from that competitor.
  - kevinmchugh 3y ago
tiahura 3y ago
You’re 180 degrees backwards. Copyright infringement requires copying. Patent infringement does not require copying. There's a famous case on this exact issue. Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc. 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992) "Nintendo can show copying by proving that Atari made literal copies of the NES program. Alternatively, Nintendo can show copying by proving that Atari had access to the NES program and that Atari's work — the Rabbit program — is substantially similar to Nintendo's work in ideas and the expression of those ideas."

kevinmchugh 3y ago

No, clean rooms are a mechanism that allows a team to avoid copyright infringement by ensuring that the developers have never seen the copyrighted code.

sandworm101 3y ago
The code avoids copyright, if it is actually different. The end product doesn't if it is still similar to the copyrighted work. Use a computer to rewrite Harry Potter all you want, but if it comes up with the same book it doesn't matter how you got there.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- marcinzm 3y ago
  That's not a clean room implementation. A clean room would be having a description for the game of quidditch (game rules are not copyrightable just like specifications for software) and then writing a background story to explain it without ever having read a single word of Harry Potter. If that comes out anywhere similar to the Harry Potter books I'd be utterly amazed.
  - sandworm101 3y ago
    >> If that comes out anywhere similar to the Harry Potter books I'd be utterly amazed. Considering that "Harry Potter" is not an uncommon name in the UK (I've met two) nor is the concept of a wizard school, or riding broomsticks, or house teams, I suspect that AI today might be able to generate something that would get Rowling's attention.
    - marcinzm 3y ago
      Rowling has been sued multiple times for the similarity of Harry Potter to previous books using those themes. She won every time. The bar for copyright infringement is not "a single piece of the book is similar" or even "a one sentence summary of the two is similar."
- kevinmchugh 3y ago
  In Sony v Connectix a judge found that software designed for compatibility deserved less protection than literary works.

marcinzm 3y ago

That's literally the exact opposite of reality: > Clean-room design is useful as a defense against copyright infringement because it relies on independent creation. However, because independent invention is not a defense against patents, clean-room designs typically cannot be used to circumvent patent restrictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

sandworm101 3y ago
In code, not end product. You can reverse engineer code all day, but your end product better not end up looking identical to the protected work. I could set a thousand AI machines in a clean room generating new song lyrics. Eventually one of them will randomly come up with identical lyrics to a Taylor Swift song. That doesn't mean I now own those lyrics free and clear. "Technically, I didn't copy" isn't a defense when you try to sell an identical product. It can be a defense in patent areas where one wants to argue prior art or obviousness.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  I'm just pointing out that your statement was 100% incorrect in every single possible setting. A clean room is NEVER a possible defense for patents and it is sometimes a possible defense for copyright.
  - sandworm101 3y ago
    Except if you are going for obviousness you want to start with people who haven't seen the patented material. You put them in the metaphorical clean room and then argue the patent invalid because some rando people came up with the same solution to the problem. And for prior art you need a group of "clean" people who were using the process/device prior to the patent, which is especially useful when dealing with trade secret material that, fearing a leak, a competitor is trying to patent. You need people clean of any taint from that competitor.
- kevinmchugh 3y ago

tiahura 3y ago

You’re 180 degrees backwards. Copyright infringement requires copying. Patent infringement does not require copying. There's a famous case on this exact issue. Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc. 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992) "Nintendo can show copying by proving that Atari made literal copies of the NES program. Alternatively, Nintendo can show copying by proving that Atari had access to the NES program and that Atari's work — the Rabbit program — is substantially similar to Nintendo's work in ideas and the expression of those ideas."