Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option

Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-05T15:35:43Z

On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:05:58AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 04 May 2009 20:34:42 PDT, "Paul E. McKenney" said:
>
> > I am more than happy to let you search the case law on this one.
>
> Ya know, it's that same "I'll let your lawyers rediscover the stuff that mine
> already found" issue that's making this thread a pain.

My apologies for the pain, however, Matthew said that he "never trusted
advice from IBM laywers", so there didn't seem to be any point in
consulting them.

> Case saying (C) *possibly* sufficient (ruling 'c-in-hexagon' was sufficient):
> Videotronics v. Bend Electronics, 586 F.Supp. 478, 481 (D. Nev. 1984)
>
> Case saying it might not be:
> Forry v. Neundorfer, 837 F.2d 259, 266 (6th Cir., 1988)
>
> Neundorfer says:
>
> "Videotronics, Inc. v. Bend Electronics, 586 F.Supp. 478 (D.Nev.1984) held that
> a letter "C" enclosed within a hexagon met the statutory requirements, but
> suggested in dicta that the symbol "(C)" might not be sufficient because
> parentheses, unlike a hexagon or a circle, would not completely enclose the
> "C". Id. at 481. However, if a "C" in a hexagon is sufficient, an argument
> exists that a "C" in parentheses is sufficient. Defendants here had actual
> notice of copyright. The trial of this action may provide a better record on
> which to finally decide whether the symbol "(C)" is sufficiently similar to a
> "C" in a circle to serve as notice of a copyright. Plaintiff is apparently now
> using the "C" in a circle. It may therefore be entitled to rely on 405(a)(2)
> even if the earlier symbol was not sufficient."
>
> Clear as mud, unless you have a more recent cite. :)

http://books.google.com/books?id=6je0tPcGMzYC&pg=PT822&lpg=PT822&dq=Videotronics+v.+Bend+Electronics,+586+F.Supp.+478,+481+(D.+Nev.+1984)&source=bl&ots=ccxO5np_uQ&sig=Q0wj4k5uCpMiZybAQe12JlHhh0A&hl=en&ei=Z1kASu2ZJ8eLtgehupyNBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPT822,M1

Dated 2005, cites a 1988 case in footnote 28. Also claims that:
Copyright Office II Compendium of Copyright Office Practices lists
acceptable variants to the C in a circle, including "(c)".

But this is a USA publication. Perhaps Matthew is thinking in terms of
some other geography. And perhaps things have changed since 2005.

Thanx, Paul