You're right, I shouldn't say that a copyright is "granted." The issue in copyrights is establishing that one in fact has the copyright, i.e., that one is the originator of the work or that one has obtained rights to it, and that it's something such that the government should recognize it as being subject to copyright law.
I've never heard of a "pattern" as something akin to a patent or a copyright, and a quick check of dictionary.com didn't clarify. Is it a concept used in Britain and/or Australia?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Standish" <r.standish.domain.name.hidden>
To: "Benjamin Udell" <budell.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 06:51:42PM -0400, Benjamin Udell wrote:
> Of course Penrose in Britain was granted a copyright (which I hear has expired) for the concept of the Penrose Tile -- the ability to create an acyclic pattern using only two tiles. He started proceedings against somebody for that (they settled out of court).
>
Surely not a copyright. And copyrights are not granted, they're invested in the work once created. Perhaps you mean a pattern, if not a patent.
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed Oct 05 2005 - 19:16:53 PDT