Your point is still wrong because Copyright only applies to the specific
expression you authored. Just as patents are supposed to only apply to
the specific implementation.
Patents - as applied broadly - covers a lot
more then what you explicitly implemented.
You want a Copyright analogy
to match what's happening with broad patents? Here's one:
Copyright "the
concept of authoring a novel with the main character being magical".
Then
sue everyone including J.K. Rowling for infringing your copyright.
This
is just another point on the subject that shows a problem - along with the
previous point being "patenting using a device for exactly what it was built
for".
In case you still don't understand that point, In Mayo the
Supremes spoke quite clearly to the concept of patenting only "using software
with a computer":
...simply implementing a mathematical principle on
a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that
principle...
The difference between what they authored and my
conclusion is that they don't appear to understand software is nothing but
abstract/math.
Sometimes I wonder about the appearance though. In the
cases I've reviewed (software + computer vs software + computer + something else
[like diehr]) - they seem to grasp the concept quite well. I sure wish they'd
explicitly state it.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|