[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:59:54 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/18/2010 12:33 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
You are never going to be able to avoid the word "inextricably".

It just means that after you have extricated out expression elements
embodying patented idea, the rest of expression elements may be

No, that's false. You are claiming that in any implementation of
a patented process there must be expression inextricably bound to
the idea, and that such a program must then be divided into the part
so bound and the rest, and only the rest is subject to copyright.
That's false, and not supported by any case law. In Atari v. Nintendo
the court says: <>

    While title 35 protects any novel, nonobvious, and useful
    process, title 17 can protect a multitude of expressions
    that implement that process. If the patentable process is
    embodied inextricably in the line-by-line instructions of
    the computer program, however, then the process merges with
    the expression and precludes copyright protection.

The court explicitly says that copyright can protect expressions that
implement patented processes, right there in the decision. I think we
are once again in a dispute of crank vs. court, and as always, court

reply via email to

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