2009/4/25 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
(Did you intend to send that to the public list? Either way, it's here now, so replying on-list.)
The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I consider to be pretty synonymous with "education". I think at this point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case
For reference, the case is online here: http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/shaw.html though with terrible markup. I'll look for LexisNexis sources and similar, but those are typically not public, so I thought I'd share that one with the list.
I've found it on LexisNexis:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=tru...
(probably a better URL, but I don't know how to use LexisNexis!)
The case is about an attempt to form a charity to research inventing a new alphabet for writing English which would have 40 characters and be easier to use. The judge concluded that increasing knowledge is not the same as education, which is entirely correct. The case is about original research, it has nothing to do with encyclopaedias and does not apply to them.