Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (CeilingCat @ April 15 2008,23:11)|
... snip description of "chinese wall" reverse engineering...
The odds that Premise media used the above procedure exceed the Universal Probability Bound.
IANAL, but from what I understand that wouldn't necessarily help them. What applies to something functional like software doesn't apply directly to other kinds of works.
Re-creating a software interface this way is OK because the interface itself isn't protected, only the code that implements it. You can reverse engineer someone else's code to understand the interface, as long as you don't copy the code. The chinese wall is just a way of ensuring, in a well documented manner, that the code isn't copied. This obviously doesn't apply to something purely creative like a song or novel. No matter what gymnastics you go through, if your novel is an obvious copy of someone else's, you are in trouble, because there is no underlying non-protected structure.
The animation in question is somewhere in between. It ultimately represents a physical process, but there's a whole lot in common that is defined by artistic choices, not inherent features of the process.
Given their demonstrated ignorance of biology, it would be completely in form for the expelled producers not to realize just how much artistic license / creative work went into the Harvard animation. Watching them discover this in court should be quite entertaining :)