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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
No misinterpretation. | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
No misinterpretation.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 04:46 PM EDT
I use my copier to among others to copy my books (written by me). That is my
right as creator of the copyrighted work. Don't confuse what the Germans call
Urheberrecht (upphovsmannarätt in Swedish) with the weaselly English copyright.


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Copyright vs Patent - still misleading
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 08:06 PM EDT

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 | # ]

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 )