RE: Registry object persistence; are BPs owned?

["Welsh, David" <David.Welsh@nordstrom.com>]

Yup,
...
(and did they really pass a law against the use of flogging ?)

Dave




> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jbc@lawyer.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 1:46 PM
> To: Moberg, Dale
> Cc: ebxml-ccbp-analysis@lists.ebxml.org; mccarth4@pilot.msu.edu;
> jdc-icot@lcc.net; jbc@lawyer.com; marcia.mclure@mmiec.com;
> plevine@telcordia.com; mblantz@netfish.com; lshreve@mediaone.net
> Subject: RE: Registry object persistence; are BPs owned?
> 
> 
> A paragraph got dropped from the end of my last message to 
> this group (1:34
> pm).  Sorry.   Here it is.  JBC  
> 
> >* * * The enlightened, and I hope eventually correct, view 
> is that logically
> >inevitable transaction archetypes should be uncopyrightable and
> >unpatentable.   The good news is that the law conceptually 
> provides for
> >this, in such doctrines as the mathematical formula 
> exception to copyright
> >and the nonobviousness requirement of patent law.   The bad 
> news is that
> >things have been muddied up lately.  I am going to 
> Philadelphia next week
> >to moderate a panel of patent lawyers about this very issue at an ABA
> >convention.  I'll let you know how it goes, if they let me live.    
> 
> However, something can be a trade secret even if it is not 
> protected by 
> copyright.  For example, Dave Welsh may or may not want 
> people to know 
> exactly which circle of business-term-hell his drop-ship 
> collaboration model 
> punts vendors into, if they miss a step.   His protection is 
> that he lodges 
> his proprietary BPs into a controlled-access registry.    Jamie
>