decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Copyright | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Copyright
Authored by: soronlin on Saturday, November 24 2012 @ 03:31 PM EST
It's different. No patent case that is being brought would work as a copyright
case, simply because the source code is in no way similar. The effect is the
same, but not the cause.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Copyright - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 24 2012 @ 05:03 PM EST
    • Copyright - Authored by: soronlin on Saturday, November 24 2012 @ 05:39 PM EST
      • Copyright - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 24 2012 @ 06:04 PM EST
      • Copyright - Authored by: mbouckaert on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 02:31 PM EST
Copyright
Authored by: Tkilgore on Saturday, November 24 2012 @ 05:53 PM EST
> Excellent report, thanks Tkilgore.

And thank you for the nice words.

> About halfway thru I was going to just
skim the rest and come back later. Instead I did a search for the string
"copyright". It appears only once in the body of your report,
when Stallman points out that patents are different from copyright.
I'm a little dismayed that neither he, nor any of the other speakers
observed that software is already protected by copyright.

Stallman may have mentioned this, or maybe not. I don't have any recordings of
the talks, only hastily scribbled notes. The same may be true about some of the
other speakers, too. Someone may have brought this up, or maybe not.

But I do have two things to say about this.

First, the question of "double protection" of software has come up
before, too, and it is one of the standard arguments for saying that software is
a unique category. Perhaps Stallman should have brought it up, or if not him
then someone else.

Second, the conference was about patents, not about copyright. Stallman was
quite correct in saying that the two systems are quite different and should not
simply be lumped together under the heading of "intellectual
property." What he wanted to do at this conference was to get a point
across, within the time allotted to him, and most definitely he did. Would his
argument have been strengthened and would his point have been made even better
if he had mentioned "double protection"? Or would his point about
patents have been diluted and obscured by a detailed comparison of the
differences between patents and copyright? That is the question you are raising.
I do not know the answer.

[ 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 )