gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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 16:00:16 -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<address@hidden>  writes:

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



reply via email to

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