Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL

[RJack]

On 8/20/2010 2:15 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> RJack<user@example.net>  writes:
>
> > 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."
>
> Sure.  But the form in which it is described is, individually,
> copyrightable material.

Not in the *context* of patent rights. GNUtians hate the word
*context* and always pretend it doesn't exist.

> You can express the same idea in 10 different ways, and the idea is
> not protected by copyright.  But the 10 different ways are.
>
> > Hyman says that the statute is *not true*.
>
> Not at all.
>
> > 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.
>
> You are getting more and more clueless the more you read.  With sane
>  people, it should be the other way round.