Re:Furthermore's Response to Matzan, point by poin
Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on September 29, 2004 09:10 PM
Mate, you don't have a clue.
Reverse Engineering needing the copyright holders permission? Now there's a patently false statement.
And as for Jem "illegally" proferring a legal opinion, quick, someone arrest President Bush, he's not a lawyer but he keeps telling me that things are illegal... To make a statement of opionion about a legal matter is not illegal, in fact it called Free Speech and is Constitutioanlly protected. To pretend that you are a lawyer and profer a legal opinion is what's illegal.
And you obviously have no understanding of the differences between Copyright, Patent, and Trade Secret. Copyright does not protect ideas, only a specific expression of them. And 9 lines of code would almost certainly not be considered copyrightable by a Federal Court as it fails the Filtration, Abstraction test (oh oh, there I go illegally proffering a legal opinion). In fact, the code would probaly fall under the scenes a faire provision of the copyright law.
I could go on, but you're a waste of space and your case would be laughed out of any court in the land.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Furthermore's Response to Matzan, point by poin
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 29, 2004 09:10 PMReverse Engineering needing the copyright holders permission? Now there's a patently false statement.
And as for Jem "illegally" proferring a legal opinion, quick, someone arrest President Bush, he's not a lawyer but he keeps telling me that things are illegal... To make a statement of opionion about a legal matter is not illegal, in fact it called Free Speech and is Constitutioanlly protected. To pretend that you are a lawyer and profer a legal opinion is what's illegal.
And you obviously have no understanding of the differences between Copyright, Patent, and Trade Secret. Copyright does not protect ideas, only a specific expression of them. And 9 lines of code would almost certainly not be considered copyrightable by a Federal Court as it fails the Filtration, Abstraction test (oh oh, there I go illegally proffering a legal opinion). In fact, the code would probaly fall under the scenes a faire provision of the copyright law.
I could go on, but you're a waste of space and your case would be laughed out of any court in the land.
John.
#