Copyright and circuit boards - a legal discussion...

[InspirationTool]

Recently in another thread there was the assertion that a circuit board was not covered by copyright. *I would like to stick to the general legal issues in this thread*

I don't get it.

I can see how a general layout and component connections can't be covered by copyright (copyright covers an implementation, not an idea), but I don't understand the assertion that an EXACT copy is not a copyright violation.

How is that different than my making a drawing of bird, and someone else copying that drawing exactly?

Am I missing something here?

-Jeff

[Geof]

To get a real opinion you need to talk to a lawyer who specializes in these things. I have looked into it a bit and I think this is an area of copyright law where you are correct and also the person who makes the assertion that copyright does not cover a circuit board is also correct. Sounds idiotic? Yes, and don't make any decisions based on what I write, investigate much deeper first.

The contradiction arises because you cannot copyright an object like a circuit board but you can copyright a drawing, sketch, photo, text, etc. So you can copyright the print showing the layout on the board. In order to get intellectual property protection on the board itself I think you have to go a step further and patent the function of the circuit but here I am getting out of my depth.

Regarding the EXACT copy not being a copyright violation that could be correct. I do not know the details in the USA but in Canada there is a section in copyright law that is related to 'own use'. In general it is not a violation for you to make a single copy of a copyrighted document provided that the copy is for your own personal use. I think something similar is present in US copyright law because it is this section that is (in my opinion abused) by individuals who are giving a training program and make copies of the textbook they use and distribute them to their trainees making the claim that this is their 'own use'.

I think if you copied a circuit layout for your hobby use you might be able to claim this was okay under the 'own use' provision but if you used it for a commercial purpose or sold it you are in violation.

[trilect]

thats why many circuits in the automotive industry are packaged in the super tough epoxy, they can't be copied or repaired.

[Mariss Freimanis]

I'm not a lawyer so it took me some money to find out it's true. To my understanding the closest is something called "mask law". This offers protection for integrated circuit fabrication masks and probably arose from the big food-fight AMD and Intel had regarding the '386 microprocessor; the ancient ancestor of the Pentium.

It gives copyright protection to the pattern of metallization applied to a semiconductor substrate. We asked for an opinion if "pattern of metallization" applied to etched copper foil and if "substrate" could mean FR4 epoxy board. It does not we were told.

Strangely enough copyright does apply to the screened legend on the top of a pcb. When you see a board screened "copyright" it only applies to what's written on the board. Go figure.

If I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected by anyone who has better knowledge about this.

Mariss

[jwstolk]

I think copyright only prohibits automated copying.
(i.e: scan the original, so some processing, print new board.)
If you just draw your own board, and use an existing board as guide
to place your components and where to put the traces, that should be
ok, even if components and traces end up in almost the same place.
To prevent direct copying, most (complex) circuit use one or more
programmable chips, that contain a program (build in flash memory)
which _can_ be copyrighted. Reverse engineering the program, and then
using that as a guide to write your own program is probably allowed,
but this is very difficult in practice, because these chips have build in
fuses that prevent reading (or altering) the memory after production.
(you will need to use a microscopic probe on the silicon or use polarised
light on the silicon to read the memory) Years ago it was common practice
to grid of the type numbers of the chips, but these days most chips can be
ordered without numbers. And patents can only prevent you from selling
something. Making something that is patented is ok, as long as you don't
sell it. (warning: i don't know **** about copyright law)
jaap.

[fyffe555]

From a Patent Attorney aquaintance;

The US CopyRight and Patent laws are different from the rest of the world. US applies 'First Invented', everywhere else applies 'First Filed'. The US allows under First Filed different scope than else where, some more extensive, some less so. For intellectual property extensive range for Copyright of Commercial, creative and industrial Property - including artwork and Software apply. While a circuit boards plans (not schematics) are probably protected by copyright, the copyright is weak because the boards are useful articles under section 101, and copyright does not protect industrial design in the US. Circuit boards are utilitarian works and it is the utility one seeks to protect, not the artistic expression of that utility. Should the plans be awarded copyright, that is if the plans are protected, they are protected only in their aesthetic aspects under the IP law, and then only to the extent that their aesthetic aspects are separable from their utilitarian aspects Since the boards' layouts are probably dictated solely by function, and not by aesthetics, copyright protection is likely to be weak or nonexistent. Unlike architecture (before the 1990 Act), circuit boards are not designed for aesthetic viewing. In a case of egregious copying involving the plans, a court might be tempted to award damages, but doubtful. Injunctive relief is unlikely in the extreme. The 1984 silicon statute covering trace and substrate was explicitly made in law to protect semiconductor chips. There is no similar coverage for plans ( circuit board layout) or for circuit schematics other than where the schematic contains entirely non publicly available proprietory silicon and the plan is a necessary functional additive element of the function of the silicon.

The best way in leiu of enforcible copyright to protect circuit boards is through continual performance advantage over the product market or physical obscurement such as a 'potting' with a material such as epoxy that cannot be removed without destroying the boards. Otherwise, you must cast them in silicon and seek protection under the Chip Act.

Finally a significantly more expensive means is to obtain Patent if the property meets the criteria. Even then, egregious copying would require the patent holder to pursue through the courts and frequently the cost of persuance exceeds the award. Unless the revenue produced by the property is or will be significantly affected by breach of Patent it may not be financially effective to sue. An alternate view is that if a Patent is not defended on all counts then the patent may be deemed to have limite dvalue to the holder and may affect a courts opinion. Note also that a Patent is enforcible only once awarded and that the frequently seen 'patent pending' has litte value and may well in fact detriment any arguement if the property were made publicly available and copied prior to a Patent being awarded.

[Mariss Freimanis]

"A Patent is enforcible only once awarded and that the frequently seen 'patent pending' has litte value and may well in fact detriment any arguement if the property were made publicly available and copied prior to a Patent being awarded."

fyffe555,

It's particularly detrimental because full disclosure of the principle of operation is required in order to apply and that information becomes public.

You get better protection by keeping the principle of operation proprietary; i.e. do not publish the circuit diagram, do not describe in any detail how the circuit works. Though the circuit may be copied because it's open to inspection, it does not convey the underlying principle governing the chosen interconnections. This makes the maintainance and improvement of the copy very difficult.

Even better protection is encapsulation of the circuit. Done properly, dismantling results in destruction of the device. This has two drawbacks though: (1) it renders the circuit unrepairable and unmodifyable, (2) it does not deter a determined attempt at copying. Though destroyed, the resulting debris still yeilds information about how the circuit looked intact.

A third, perhaps best method is to design a circuit having a programmable device like a CPLD or FPGA aboard. My understanding is firmware residing in a programmable device comes under software copyright protection. Because the device services the visible circuit, its firmware will be very inflexible to modifications sufficiently great enough to circumvent copyright protection.

All this is kind of like having to build a meaner mousetrap because the mice are getting meaner. :-)

Mariss

[Geof]

Originally Posted by fyffe555 From a Patent Attorney aquaintance; ...... ad infinitum.

I think I said more or less the same thing but I am not sure. A couple of things do come out of this lawyer's explanation and that is really good protection for something is via patent but this only gives you the right to seek redress through the courts if you claim someone is infringing. If the someone has far more money than you forget it; they will bleed you dry so you have to abandon the suit and they win by default.

And if I may drift a little away from the strict legal discussion.

As Mariss points out you can put a logo or something which is itself copyrightable on your design and then put on 'copyright' and some people will be scared off. In a similar manner some people pue on Patent Applied for which has no meaning whatsoever; Patent Pending means you have submitted an application.

On a practical level if you create something that is truly subject to copyright protection; i.e. a sculpture or engraving which is what some of the people on this forum do, then the protection is almost automatic; you just label your work. The flip side is if you take somebody elses picture and create a lithophane from it you may be infringing their copyright.

Regarding jaap's comment "Making something that is patented is ok, as long as you don't sell it." This could get you into problems because processes and procedures can be patented.

[Mariss Freimanis]

Not mentioned in any of this is how it can be detrimental to the uninvolved user when the emphasis is placed on protecting intellectual property at the expense of a product's functionallity, ease of use and maintainance.

We avoid encapsulation for that reason. In a perfect world (one that offered effective legal protection), we would also supply circuit diagrams, board layouts and easily replacable components. I'm hoping that our future drives incorporating programmable devices (like the G204 Vampire), will help in this regard. They however won't be released until all legal protections are obtained first and that takes time. Copying and protecting against copying inconveniences everyone.

Mariss

[ynneb]

At the moment we are talking about legal protections. ( Or lack of them)
What about physical protections, and tripwire protection ( A made up term which I will explain.)

Even if a product was fully protected legally, there is no guarantee it wouldn't be copied in a place like China where they dont activley enforce these protections anyway. Just look at the CD and DVD copy woes.

Personally I would not be spending those 1000s on fat arsed toothless lawers, but be spending the money on ways that physically stop others from copying.

Pysical protections: Blobs of crap on ICs, scraping off labels, encasing the entire board in resins.
Firmware protections: Having redundant chips on the circuit board that are only there as circuit board paths. Sort of like an invisible key.
Tripwire protections: Protections where firmware is lost the moment the board is tampered with. IE: the firmware is battery powered up and will be deleted once moved from the the power source.
Validation protections
How about a protection like.... The purchaser recieves the board, but must connect it into his computer first. The computer connects back to base that then sends out a validation key for each individually internally numbered board. Without the validation key from the manufacturer the board is useless. Maybe this is current technology, but I have never heard of it b4.

[CJL5585]

I think Mariss is taking the right path in going with programmable logic array IC's, and proprietary software.

I think one might be able to protect the PLA programming with a copyright, and I know the software can be.

Jerry

[Ferenczyg]

Ynneb, maybe not enough.. take a look at:

http://www.dsv.su.se/~icss-jpc/exjob...id_invited.pdf

BTW, using CPLD/FPGA and adhere to SW copyright laws sounds smart to me.

/F