On 2/16/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/16/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (See, among other cases, Lexmark. v. Static > > Controls.) A copyright is not a patent, you can only own > > something if there > > are multiple equally good ways to do it and you claim *one* of them. > Only in a world where "write a Linux module" is a "functional idea." I > don't think that the legal world in the US is an example of such a > world, though you clearly do. I'm not arguing "write a Linux module" is a functional idea. But "write code so that a graphics card with a X1950 chipset works with a Linux kernel" certainly is. Again, see Lexmark v. Static Controls. If "make a toner cartridge that works with a particular Lexmark printer" is a functional idea, why is "make a graphics driver that works with a particular Linux kernel" not? What is the difference you think matters?
I think you are reading Lexmark wrong. First off, Lexmark ruled that scenes a faire applied to the toner-level calculation, not "make a toner cartridge that works with a particular Lexmark printer." It was the toner-calculation algorithm that could't be done any other sane way, which made the TLP unprotectable via copyright. The opinion says, "Both prongs of the infringement test, in other words, consider 'copyrightability,' which at its heart turns on the principle that copyright protection extends to expression, not to ideas." You're saying that there's no other way to interface device drivers to an operating system than the current Linux driver model? That's strange, since it's a different driver model than Linux had previously, and it's also different from the BeOS driver interface, etc. If the Linux driver interface is protectable, it doesn't seem like scenes a faire applies. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
