Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 8/18/2010 12:33 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > [...]
> >> You are never going to be able to avoid the word "inextricably".
> >
> > It just means that after you have extricated out expression elements
> > embodying patented idea, the rest of expression elements may be
> > copyrightable
> 
> No, that's false. 

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise24.html

"IV. Applying The AFC Test

While it seems simple to describe the abstraction-filtration-comparison
analysis, the devil is in the details. The abstraction can result in the
comparing of hundreds or thousands of different aspects of a computer
program if one is not careful. Elements are filtered out of
consideration on the basis of broad criteria, including:

·   The element’s expression was dictated by reasons of efficiency, such
as when it is the best way of performing a particular function.

·   The element’s expression was dictated by external factors, such as
using an existing file format or interoperating with another program.

·   The element’s expression is a conventional way of writing something
in the particular programming language or machine running the program.

·   The element, at the particular level of abstraction, is an
unprotectable process and not protectable expression.

·   The element is taken from the public domain or is an unprotectable
fact.

Any protection for elements dictated by efficiency or external factors
or processes must come from patents or trade secrets, if at all, and not
from copyright."

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)