The IPKat’s readers are probably aware of the MSBlast worm, which has been making its way around the internet and is due to launch an attack on Microsoft’s website tomorrow. Disturbingly, a rather nasty pop-up advert has appeared on certain sites that mimics the effect of the worm. A box appears containing an error NT\AUTHORITY SYSTEM error message stating "Windows must now restart because the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Service terminated unexpectedly". The box is the same as that which appears when a computer is infected with the worm. It then begins to count down from 60 seconds to 50 seconds, at which point the user is informed that his system is vulnerable and he is invited to purchase Computer Shield antivirus software. The user is then “mousetrapped” in the site and cannot escape from it. The way to get rid of the site is to press CNTRL + ALT + DELETE. When the Windows Taskmaster appears, end the Internet Explorer/Computer Shield task.
The IPKat wonders whether the familiar grey box in which Windows warnings appear is itself a work which attracts protection as a copyright work, or whether the appearance of that box, in relation to an offer made by another software company, is an act of passing off. If the answer to either of those questions is “yes” and Microsoft is in a mood to sue, the legal profession would receive a timely boost to its flagging fortunes.
A further issue which remains for the courts to determine is that of the legal protection of real computer worms and viruses. Throughout the European Union, patent law prevents the patenting of inventions “the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to public policy or morality”; likewise European Union trade mark legislation prevents the registration of signs which are “contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality”. These provisions would likely prevent a malicious worm or virus being patented, though their effect on worm and virus names is uncertain. Copyright law however, at least in the UK, does not appear to have the same statutory bars. It is probable that copyright does in fact subsist in worms and viruses but that the courts will simply refuse to lend their support to its enforcement.
Recipes for worm cakes, worm bread, and worm burgers
How to deworm computers, dogs and children
What Shakespeare thought of worms here
The IPKat wonders whether the familiar grey box in which Windows warnings appear is itself a work which attracts protection as a copyright work, or whether the appearance of that box, in relation to an offer made by another software company, is an act of passing off. If the answer to either of those questions is “yes” and Microsoft is in a mood to sue, the legal profession would receive a timely boost to its flagging fortunes.
A further issue which remains for the courts to determine is that of the legal protection of real computer worms and viruses. Throughout the European Union, patent law prevents the patenting of inventions “the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to public policy or morality”; likewise European Union trade mark legislation prevents the registration of signs which are “contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality”. These provisions would likely prevent a malicious worm or virus being patented, though their effect on worm and virus names is uncertain. Copyright law however, at least in the UK, does not appear to have the same statutory bars. It is probable that copyright does in fact subsist in worms and viruses but that the courts will simply refuse to lend their support to its enforcement.
Recipes for worm cakes, worm bread, and worm burgers
How to deworm computers, dogs and children
What Shakespeare thought of worms here
WORMS, FAKE WORMS AND COPYRIGHT [written by Ilanah and Jeremy]
![<strong>WORMS, FAKE WORMS AND COPYRIGHT</strong> [written by Ilanah and Jeremy]]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Friday, August 15, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html