Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL

[RJack]

On 8/18/2010 9:30 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Nintendo’s 10NES program contains more than an idea or expression
> necessarily incident to an idea.

A fine Straw Man Hyman -- but a Straw Man has no brain.

I have *never" claimed that copyright doesn't invest in the abstract
code that contains "more than ... expression necessarily incident" to
the patentable idea (see above).

I claim that the specific code necessarily required to embody the
line-by-line instructions is not eligible for copyright in the context
of patents.

You hate that qualification "in the context of patents" don't you?

That is exactly what the Lexmark decision was trying to teach:

"For like reasons, Judge Feikens is correct that a poem in the abstract
could be copyrightable. But that does not mean that the poem receives
copyright protection when it is used in the context of a lock-out
code. Similarly, a computer program may be protectable in the abstract
but not generally entitled to protection when used necessarily as a
lock-out device.

Sincerely,
RJack :)