Talk:Mask work

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] What is a mask work?

The introduction paragraph to this article currently leaves a lot to be desired - while quoting the US Code may be very commendable, it does not amount to a concise and easy-to-understand definition of the term, which is what the introduction should be. Following a link here, I had a hard time working out what was being discussed. I suggest that somebody who knows what a "mask work" actually is add a proper introductory sentence/paragraph of the form "A mask work is...", and then a new heading be added called "Definition" into which the legalese can be dumped. - IMSoP 18:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The intro was indeed cryptic. Does the added definition make sense to you? --Edcolins 12:46, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better thanks - that paragraph is exactly what I would expect and hope for at the top of such a page. :) - IMSoP 18:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Limited geographic scope

I insist on keeping the {{limitedgeographicscope}} tag on top of the article, since in my opinion mask work intellectual property laws are defined in many countries. Yet, the article only relates to the U.S. More precisely, WTO TRIPs Agreement makes it compulsory for every member to protect mask work, i.e. "layout-designs (topographies) of integrated circuits" [1]. --Edcolins 09:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and thank you for the external ref link. Apparently US law does not currently include the non-registered MW term of 10-year (or 15-year) protection required by Art. 38. 17 USC § 908(a): "Protection of a mask work ... shall terminate if ... registration ... is not made as provided in this chapter within two years after ... the mask work is first commercially exploited anywhere in the world." Lupinelawyer 15:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tinkering and cleanup

Mentioned original basis for sui generis. Removed all references to "monopoly" as they do not equate to exclusive rights. Pared the digression into fair use as it clearly does not apply to mask works. Deleted whole thing about "§117 backup and ROM dumps" because any ROM dump is clearly a copyright infringement (copy of the software), not a mask work infringement (copy of the mask art). Added a few things from the statutes and comparisons with other IP. Wondering what, if any, relevance the "orignal" discussion (near the end) has to anything, mainly because "original" probably means "not copied from somebody else," like it does for copyright, and every creative poke and diddle in later editions is still an "original" work. So each new game is individually protectable to the extent it is not an exact copy of an earlier work or a combination of earlier works with other unprotectable elements. Again, the copyright also covers the underlying copyrightable code forever, so what difference does it make when the mask work expires? Just my $0.02; I don't really know the metrics of mask "originality", but I'd like to hear more about why this analysis should stay. Lupinelawyer 08:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)