[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Did I finally figure out the rationale?

From: rjack
Subject: Re: Did I finally figure out the rationale?
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:53:12 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070326)

rjack wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...]
Contracts fall into contract law. Copyright licenses fall into copyright law.

Repeating Moglen's idiocy doesn't make it less idiocy. Copyright law establishes property rights. Licensing of that property fall into contract law.

regards, alexander.


Moglen is asserting the same kind of idiocy about the GPL3 and patents.
Why doesn't anyone ever read the decision:

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387
F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004)?

There is precious little copyright protection left for source code after
the "abstraction-filtration-comparison" test. Source code that forms a
step in a "software" process patent is NOT eligible for copyright
protection in the context of that patent. The GPL3 is 100% FUD
concerning patents and the DMCA.

Moglen proves that if you repeat a falsehood often enough, some gullible
people will think it is gospel truth.


The software drivers for any operating system are written to interface
by way of the hardware design specifications of various OEM's -- often through reverse engineering. The code is dictated by the practical realities of the hardware's electrical specifications.

The Lexmark decision clearly demonstrates that the driver code for a
computer's input/output devices is not eligible for copyright protection:

"In the computer-software context, the doctrine means that the elements of a program dictated by practical realities--e.g., by hardware standards and mechanical specifications, software standards and compatibility requirements, computer manufacturer design standards, target industry practices, and standard computer programming practices--may not obtain protection. Id. (citing case examples); see Sega Enters., 977 F.2d at 1524 ("To the extent that a work is functional or factual, it may be copied."); Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1473 (9th Cir.1992) (affirming district court's finding that "[p]laintiffs may not claim copyright protection of an ... expression that is, if not standard, then commonplace in the computer software industry"). As "an industry-wide goal," programming "[e]fficiency" represents an external constraint that figures prominently in the copyrightability of computer programs. Altai, 982 F.2d at 708."


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]