[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The Grounds for Appeal

Claus Fischer <claus.fischer@clausfischer.com> wrote:
>Even supposing the code had functionality I flatout refuse to
>acknowledge that this is a reason for it losing the speech
>protection. The point about conduct is, conduct makes the thing
>lose its speech character, therefore it is non-speech and need
>not be protected. The alleged functionality in this example
>may at most be in addition to the speech quality, not changing
>the fact that the code is speech. Therefore code is still speech.

If code is functional, then isn't (almost) all speech also
functional?  The function being to communicate.

Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com