|
From: | RJack |
Subject: | Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL |
Date: | Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:00:16 -0000 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 |
On 8/20/2010 7:59 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
RJack<user@example.net> writes: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 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." 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.If you mean that the exact text of a granted patent application is not copyrightable, that may be correct in some jurisdictions. But any implementation of the patentable idea that is not a straightforward copy is again subject to copyright by its respective author, even though he might not make use unencumbered use of it in disregard of the patent. You really should do something you understand.
It seems you have just nullified the AFC test's merger doctrine. Is that what you're saying? Sincerely, RJack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |