Public domain: Difference between revisions

Public domain (view source)

Revision as of 07:05, 11 September 2021

381 bytes added , 11 September 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,646

edits

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 That is the ''colloquial'' use: “public domain” is really just a pompous way of saying “public”.
-But “public domain” also has a technical, narrower definition, that hails from the law of [[copyright]]: information that is “in the public domain” consists of all creative work, which ''could'' be protected by intellectual property rights, but which is not, whether because those rights have expired, been forfeited, waived, or for some other reason just don’t apply.
+But “public domain” also has a technical, narrower definition, that hails from the law of [[copyright]]: information that is “in the public domain” consists of all creative work that ''could be'' protected by [[intellectual property]] rights, but ’’isn’t’’, whether because those rights have expired, been forfeited, waived, or for some other reason just don’t apply.
-Version one of the [[OneNDA]] uses the expression “public domain”.
+The [[OneNDA]] itself is “in the public domain” in this narrow way. But much of the information one may share under it is not. Yet, in its “carve out” from the scope of confidentiality, version one uses the expression “public domain” rather than simply “public”.
-Experienced hands will not be surprised to hear this is a cue for [[Doyen of drafting|those who take pleasure from such things]], to raise a technical objection. ''This is too narrow! This is wrong-headed!'' This means only information that is not protected by [[patent]] or [[copyright]] is excluded from the [[confidentiality obligation]], when what one really means is information that is !
+This is a cue for [[Doyen of drafting|those who take pleasure from such things]], to raise a technical objection.
-Indeed, friends, reading “public domain” in this narrow sense makes no commercial sense at all: patent or copyright protection is only really meaningful where information ''is'' public: if it is not, it is hard too see how anyone can copy it. If the information is public, but not yet ''in the public domain'', it is, QED, not confidential, and calling it confidential does not change that.
+“''Aha! This is too narrow! This is wrong-headed!'' This means only information that is not protected by [[patent]] or [[copyright]] is excluded from the [[confidentiality obligation]], when what one really means is information that is public!”
+We remark at once that on a technical, fussy reading, this is correct. You might expect version two to correct this: however you look at it, “public” is a neater expression, if that is what you mean.
+Indeed, “public domain” in its technical sense makes a nonsense, since a copyright has no practical value until information ''is'' public: if it is not, it is hard too see how anyone can copy it, whether they are allowed to or not. If the information is public, but not yet ''in the public domain'', it is, QED, not confidential, and calling it confidential does not change that.
 But, as we know, the eyrie overflows with nervous chickens. Let us work this logic out, and take “public domain” to have its technical meaning and imagine the dispute that might arise should I have passed to you, under protection of a OneNDA, a prospectus: being composed not six months ago and at great cost by my counsel, it is undoubtedly a work of a creative effort, if not great imagination, and it attracts automatic copyright protection. It has been published, for all the world to see — with that express intent, in fact —