Yeah, a business model is more important than the non-copyrightable nature of facts. Good thing the judge understood the actual law, which is not concerned with business models.
> Yeah, a business model is more important than the non-copyrightable nature of facts.
I fail to see your point. The law should be applied with a dose of common sense. The organizers are not barring anyone from the "facts" as you put it just trying to get a lead in broadcasting. The law upholds the rights of organizers of other sports eg football and boxing based on their peculiarities and in case you are not aware is frequently biased in defense of their commercial rights (one only needs recall the absurdities surrounding the olympics).
For years, chess has suffered from crises caused by lack of sponsorship for events. If this ruling serves to deter future sponsors and leads to uncertainty or cancellation of matches (which has happened before) then what good is that?
Your argument can be summarized as that we should ignore what copyright law says because the consequence of the law is bad in this particular case for certain chess companies.
That's neither a sane or reasonable way to make legal judgments. Can you show a sound legal argument why the judge's ruling was wrong?
FYI, there used to be a 'hot news' doctrine that might have protected the chess moves (and the FIDE made this their argument), but it's been largely superseded or overturned [1].
