Re: Did I finally figure out the rationale?

[rjack]

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.
>
> Amen.
>
> 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)?
>
> http://www.law.pitt.edu/madison/copyright/supplement/lexmark_v_static_control.htm 
>
>
> 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.
>
> rjack
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."

rjack