Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL

[RJack]

On 8/19/2010 11:57 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > On 8/19/2010 11:39 AM, RJack wrote:
> > > No court case is required:
> >
> > Is that like "show me the settlement agreements"?
>
> Not at all stupid Hyman.

Alex, Hyman's not stupid -- he is playing deliberate rhetorical games.


"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."

So...

"In no case does copyright protection... extend to... *regardless of the
form* in which it is described... or embodied in such work."

Hyman says that the statute is *not true*. Hyman is telling Congress and
you and me that copyright protection *does* extend to works that embody
a patentable idea in source code form. End of story.

There's no rational form of reasoning that one can use refute a
solipsistic argument. Hyman retreats to his own little world. Physics
says water runs downhill. Hyman says water runs uphill. Hyman wins in
his own solipsistic world.

Sincerely,
RJack :)