Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL

[RJack]

On 8/19/2010 3:27 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 8/19/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote:
> > "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."
> >
> > "In no case does copyright protection... extend to... *regardless
> > of the form* in which it is described... or embodied in such
> > work."
>
> Notice how this anti-GPL crank elides the idea, procedure, etc.
> phrase with an ellipsis. Of course, without that elision, the
> copyright law says that protection extends to the work but not the
> idea, exactly the way it has always been construed. That's what the
> court says in Atari v. Nintendo
> <http://digital-law-online.info/cases/24PQ2D1015.htm> and it's what
> the court says in Apple v. Franklin
> <<http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10063204125696546680>.

Your own interpretation shoots down your reply to the original claim I
made in this thread. I claimed that the GPL could not affect ideas
covered by patent rights. So... have it your way! You claim, "... the
copyright law says that protection extends to the work but not the idea,
exactly the way it has always been construed."

Ergo, the GPL as a copyright license cannot extend to an idea covered by
a patent. Thank you for affirming my original premise. I'll take a frank
admission that I'm right gracefully. Thank you.

Sincerely,
RJack :)