|Subject:||It's all context|
|Date:||Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:56:08 -0500|
|User-agent:||Thunderbird 126.96.36.199 (Windows/20070326)|
"For like reasons, Judge Feikens is correct that a poem in the abstract could be copyrightable. But that does not mean that the poem receives copyright protection when it is used in the context of a lock-out code. Similarly, a computer program may be protectable in the abstract but not generally entitled to protection when used necessarily as a lock-out device."; Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004).
Likewise a computer program may be protectable in the abstract but not generally entitled to protection when used necessarily as a step in a software process patent. The GPL copyright license can have no control over software process patent steps because the code implimenting those steps is *not* eligible for copyright protection in the patent context.
It is a great disservice to open source computer programmers to be misled by Eben Moglen, Richard Stallman, Bruce Perens and other "free" software advocates. The GPL3 is effectively DOA. Stallman's rabid fanaticism concerning Microsoft will eventually marginalize "free" software.
There is no magic bullet to fight Microsoft's patent hegemony except other independently obtained software process patents. Let the education process begin for open source programmers. The dream of the GPL freeing programmers to do what they do best --- write source code --- is simply a dream. Without expending sufficient time and resources learning the legal methods for software patent applications, open source software projects will become an evolutionary dead end unless these projects seek out a corporate "patent" sugar daddy to protect them.
Microsoft is TERRIFIED of the thought of software patents in the hands of the little guy.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|