Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
George gives a quick update on the Paramount v Axanar case and the LCS’s part in it. This was previously discussed in episode 119. For more information, please see the Language Creation Society’s Axanar information page.
Shemtov
Question as a layman (that George probably can’t answer, but I want to bring it up anyway):
Would a design patent on a conlang, if possible, be a better protection then copyright, as the time issued is much less, and the fact that patent law focuses more on monetazation (if I understand this correctly) and if, again I’m understanding this correctly, a small change in morphosyntax or phonology would mean it’s a new patent? If so, successfully arguing to the patent office that a conlang is patentable would mean there would be little room to argue that they copyrightable as patent and copyright seem to be mutually exclusive?
Shemtov
Another benefit to making conlangs fall under patent instead of copyright law is that one has to apply for a patent, while any typed description of a conlang, even on a little internet forum is IIRC automatically copyrighted.
admin
Patents are covered in the old Denton’s memo. Basically, it’s very difficult to make a conlang that is both 1) useful, and 2) a novel idea. ANADEW is the main enemy here: almost any conlang you could actually learn will have naturally occurring prior art for just about all its features. I don’t know much about design patents, but I imagine some novelty is still required.
Note IANAL.
Pete Bleackley
A description of a conlang may be copyrightable, but a description of a thing is not the thing itself. That’s an important distinction.