|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 09:17 AM EDT |
Thanks for the detailed reply, nice summary.
However: see "Computer Programs, User Interfaces, and
Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act of 1976:" by Paula
Samualson
Note: Judge Alsup specifically ask both parties to comment
on this paper, in writing...
"17 usc 102(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."
If you read the above word for word, you will see that this
statute goes far beyond mere "ideas". And it disproves that
this is only about idea/expression dichotomy, it goes beyond
that. In Whelan v. Jaslow the appellate court made the
assumption that it was only about idea/espression dichotomy,
a wrong interpretation, if that was so then the statute
would say precisely that.
Actually I remember reading about Google Lawyers addressing
that issue, so I don't know what kind of implications that
might have for further proceedings.
Computer programs are very terse and
functional, often directly mathematically functional.
Functions and methods are not IDEAS. Systems are also not
IDEAS. The Statute must be directly understood for what it
says.
An Algorithm must have Structure, Sequence and Order, so if
you allow copyright on SSO then you end up allowing it for
algorithms, that was never intended to be protected by
copyright, maybe by patent for which the requirements and
application, however, are far more strict.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
