Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL

[RJack]

On 8/19/2010 10:50 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 8/18/2010 5:46 PM, RJack wrote:
> > On 8/18/2010 3:06 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > > Really, I have no idea what this absurd discussion is even about
> > > anymore. The notion that copyright does not apply to a computer
> > > program which implements a patented process is patently
> > > ridiculous,
> >
> > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, "... a computer program ..." ? Nobody said "a
> > computer program wasn't protected in the abstract -- only that
> > specific lines implementing the patent's claims are not eligible in
> > the context of the patent.
>
> Yes, that's the absurd notion. It's just false. If you believe
> otherwise, perhaps you can point to a court case where copyright was
> disallowed on a work or parts of it because it implemented a patent
> claim?

No court case is required:
"17 USC § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in
which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

Which part of  "... regardless of the form in which it is described,
explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work" don't you understand?
If you can't understand the plain teaching of the statute as written
then all the court cases in the world won't help.

It's just like President Obama and the birthers. No amout of rational
argument will convince them. Like a little kid who asks an unbroken
litany of 'why'. At some point you just have to give up and stop
responding to the bait.

Sincerely,
RJack :)