[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL

From: RJack
Subject: Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:00:13 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/20/2010 2:15 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
RJack<>  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

"17 USC ยง 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

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.

reply via email to

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