[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL

From: RJack
Subject: Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:59:46 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/16/2010 10:53 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 8/13/2010 5:59 PM, RJack wrote:
What say ye now

That what you quote supports what I said, not what you said. A work
is not copyrightable when it represents the only way to do something,
because then its creation lacks creativity. Whether the work is
subject to patent claims is relevant only to the extent that the
patented process is so precise that any work embodying it would be
written in the same way. It is not the patent that prevents copyright
from applying, it is the precision of the description. The same might
apply if a computer program implemented a precisely-described but not
patented algorithm published in a journal.

As I just quoted:

"For computer programs, “if the patentable process is embodied
inextricably in the line-by-line instructions of the computer
program, [ ] then the process merges with the expression and precludes
copyright protection.” Atari I, 975 F.2d at 839–40;"

If the *patent*process you wish to indemnify through the GPL license is
implemented in the code you claim is covered by the GPL *copyright*
license then copyright protection is precluded in that specific
line-by-line embodiment.

You can't have it both ways.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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