At a certain point layout, organization and curriculum constitute IP. Imagine if I comb through legal archives and present case summaries to help you understand a legal concept. That is an extraordinary task, much MORE difficult than summarizing a case. The same can be said in producing educational material for a neuroscience or psychology class. I am teacher and I believe that publishers are producing complex "information" beyond the word order (ie. content order, curriculum) that should be copyrightable.
If you disagree, run this issue through the GUCCI KNOCKOFF TEST: would this product have even close to the same value or marketability if it weren't for its close resemblance to the original?
If they were to use the same material (in this case reworked Wikipedia articles for the most part) but not use existing layouts/curriculum would it have the same value to university students?
In my view, their production costs would rise substantially because they would need to hire curriculum experts and their get to market strategy would disappear as they lost their value to university students.
I'm frankly surprised that their investors bought the "alignment" argument.
If you disagree, run this issue through the GUCCI KNOCKOFF TEST: would this product have even close to the same value or marketability if it weren't for its close resemblance to the original?
If they were to use the same material (in this case reworked Wikipedia articles for the most part) but not use existing layouts/curriculum would it have the same value to university students?
In my view, their production costs would rise substantially because they would need to hire curriculum experts and their get to market strategy would disappear as they lost their value to university students.
I'm frankly surprised that their investors bought the "alignment" argument.