

Being first doesn't mean proprietary - even if it is Microsoft - lmacvittie
http://devcentral.f5.com/weblogs/macvittie/archive/2009/06/29/being-first-to-do-something-doesnrsquot-automatically-make-it-proprietary.aspx

======
grellas
Something is proprietary if it _belongs_ to someone (Latin "proprius" - "one's
own"), as opposed to being publicly shared.

Legally, for the the item discussed in the article to belong specifically and
exclusively to Microsoft, it would need to be a patentable invention or a
copyrightable work or a protectable trade secret.

Being first matters with patents but patent law almost certainly wouldn't
apply to the solution described in the article.

Copyright protects original works of authorship when they have been reduced to
a tangible medium of expression. It can give proprietary rights (i.e.,
ownership) to specific code but never to an idea or an approach to a technical
solution. Being first is necessary with respect to particular code (it has to
be original) but does not otherwise affect the issue. It is open season on any
approach to the solution, and who is first does not matter. With respect to
any particular code that is original and otherwise protectable by copyright,
however, copyright would give a particular party the right to control the code
itself even if such code becomes openly available for all to see.

Trade secret protection extends to proprietary information that is kept secret
and that gives someone a significant competitive advantage. Being first is
irrelevant here as well. Of course, something that is open for all to see is
not protectable as a trade secret unless it were illegally disclosed by
unauthorized means.

For the solution discussed in the article, only copyright might theoretically
apply to protect any code used, provided it is original.

