[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
- To: Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>
- Cc: John Smith <notobvious@hotmail.com>, PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>, phm@openecs.org, patents@aful.org, epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk
- Subject: Re: [Patents] Re: Summary of legal arguments
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:23:45 -0500
- Organization: Real Measures
Gregory Aharonian wrote:
>
> [. . .] the deliberately ill-defined vague wording of 52.2.C was
> written at a time when people everywhere thought that some aspects
> of software could be protected by copyright. In the decades since
> 52.2.C was written, the use of copyright for protecting software
> has been so limited by courts on both sides of the Atlantic that
> today copyright is effectively impotent for protecting software.
> Had 52.2.C been written afresh today, there would be no 52.2.C in
> it, especially in light of today's hardware-software codesign
> tools which blur any applied use distinction between hardware and
> software.
The question of whether software can be protected by
copyright is entirely irrelevant. The question is why
certain areas have traditionally been excluded from patent
coverage. Greg's "solution" is to pretend there are no such
reasons.
Seth Johnson
- Re: [Patents] Hardware N Software, (continued)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)