[Patents] more inflammatory speeches from Greg

[srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)]

>The judge is definitely on the "software should be copyrighted"
>side, and takes away the enforceability of certain license terms
>on the grounds that copyright law already does it.

This means nothing.  Most software copyright decisions written by
such judges over the last twenty years have contained one or more
false statements about software and mathematics.  Worse, one
judge will cite earlier decisions, adding nothing new and 
compounding the earlier decisions.

They introduce such false statements because it is the only way
to deal with the illogic of handling the process/method nature 
of software in a system (copyright) that prohibits the copyrighting
of process/method.  Most of the confusion is historically based,
bad patent and copyright decisions made in the 1970s that just
now are being logically resolved to be handled by the process/method
patenting system.

And trying to extend copyright to handle process/method will turn
it into a system that looks like the patent system.  So let's fix
the patent system.

Greg