on-topic: When is a copy a copy?

ie

to

as

as

but you can't copyright doing a given job. As to "API" as IP, I believe th at would only apply to publishing the API, not implementing it. The most b asic issue in copyright is that it does not apply to ideas, only expression . If your code is not the same, it can do the same thing without violation .

I can't say anything about a case where I don't know the details. I don't see how this has anything to do with the issues of cloning a PC. Please do n't try drawing an analogy. Analogies are only needed when you can't discu ss the issue at hand in a clear manner and copying the PC has been done man y times, so discuss that maybe?

o create a functional specification which hardware and software are designe d to specifically to prevent any claims of copyright violation. Do some re ading on AMD vs. Intel regarding the '386 and '486 designs. The microcode is protected just like the BIOS binary, but if you don't copy that it's not a violation of copyright.

ion instead of expecting to be spoon fed. You have enough info to dig a li ttle on your own now.

yright,

in.

Clearly you are comparing apples and oranges. Discuss the issue at hand pe rhaps.

Rick C.

Illegal? That's certainly arguable, however, IBM was under some pretty severe consent decree restrictions at the time (that they were trying to get lifted).

Law* would.

The law exists for two reasons: 1. it keeps the law-abiders in order, 2. it's not a barrier, rather it's just as compliant as any other system is in the face of great money/power.

It's rather peculiar that so many, working in law, believe their own hype -- that law is some sort of perfectly fair system, always available to everyone always -- or even that that's just a goal to strive for, acknowledging that reality falls short of that in practice. Alas, it doesn't matter what they think, the system is set up -- external to them -- to exhibit these corruptible characteristics.

It's funny to look at "justice" in countries like Russia, or NK. I would suspect that its workers believe in the system just as much (heh, well, give or take how much political brainwashing is involved -- probably moreso if anything). But that, between the laws they must follow (remember, the law itself needn't be moral, especially in such countries), and how they are organized and budgeted, they're effectively just another weapon the executive can use against its (political) enemies.

Tim

Several years ago none other than Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn made a speech claiming that "law" was an oppressor. Very disappointing that even he doesn't get it. It's always anarchy or utopia with them. No concept of rule-of-law and its benefits.

Don't even think the two are similar. The Soviets are gone, and Putin is de dicated to the country. I glean this from years of international news they doesn't quite follow the party line parroted by western media. I know they are no more trustable than our media, but you get two slants on something y ou might find a level. Russia has changed and is now a freer country than t he US. I can substantiate most of that statement if asked. Some parts no, b ecause I heard it from the immigrants' own voices. And they are all skilled .

I think North Korea is going to change. They will be pressured about human rights when they "join" the international community. Hillary Rodham would h ave never got that started.

-- that law is some sort of perfectly fair system, always available to everyon e always -- or even that that's just a goal to strive for, acknowledging that reality falls short of that in practice. "

That's their paradigm, not mine.

Solzhenitsyn's experience of the legal process in the Stalinist Soviet Union probably gave him a life-long fear and contempt for all things legal; can't really blame him. His experience was like nothing we can even so much as imagine in the West.

Tell that to any of the inmate at Guantanamo who were held for years without being charged, or allowed to defend themselves in any manner.

Rick C.