|
|
|
| Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
You are trying to refute facts by citing the very laws that
need to be fixed. Most of us are here to determine where
and how they got those laws wrong, to explain why they are
wrong, and provide advice on how to correct them. If we can
get the laws to conform to reality, they may produce justice;
when they don't, they can only produce injustice. Quoting
bad laws as counter-argument does not contribute anything
useful.
---------------------
Gentlemen!! You can't fight in here -- this is the War Room![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 02:33 PM EDT |
Each of which is identical except for the words and pictures printed thereon.
Go get a copyright for each. The format might be patentable,
the expression of the ideas not, but they can be copyright.
The film projector is already patented. Each of the movies
shown thru it will certainly be copyright if the maker
had any sense, each film can be copied independently
of the projector.
> So why would the improvement to the camera not be patentable
> if the improvement were implemented in software?
The processor chip can be patented (subject to prior art, &c.),
the software being the expression of the idea of how to do
the calculations, is subject to copyright. This is the division
of labor that we despair the judiciary does not comprehend.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
