Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Disagree | 402 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Disagree

Authored by: pem on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 10:34 PM EDT

If you're writing proprietary code for someone else, you're not supposed to take
it with you. That goes to wilfullness, etc.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Disagree with the disagree - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 10:39 PM EDT
- You're missing my point - Authored by: pem on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:01 PM EDT
  - Your point is -wrong-... - Authored by: BitOBear on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:28 PM EDT
    - Your point is -wrong-... - Authored by: pem on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 01:29 PM EDT
  - You're missing my point - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 11:38 AM EDT
    - You're missing my point - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT
Willfulness of whom? - Authored by: BitOBear on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:18 PM EDT
- Harmony is not derived from openJDK n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 06:05 AM EDT
Disagree - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 12:01 AM EDT
- I read the testimony - Authored by: pem on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 10:38 AM EDT
Disagree with disagree part 2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT
- Did you look at rangecheck? - Authored by: pem on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 10:21 PM EDT

Not just de minimis, either.

Authored by: OmniGeek on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 08:54 AM EDT

Add: Purely functional not expressive, as well as scenes a faire.

Try being expressive in a function with three actual statements (not counting
opening/closing braces) and tightly constrained functionality. Nope. Nothing to
see there, folks.

As for scenes a faire, try to implement the required simple, tightly constrained
functionality in a way significantly different from the original function
without breaking compatibility. Bzerrt! Nothing to see here either.

As far as I can see, RangeCheck() is totally nonprotectable by copyright in the
first place, so it's case of multiplying zero by zero by zero to determine the
scope of infringement there.

---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )