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

[Jim Bauer <jfbauer(at)home.com>]

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