Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!smurf!urlichs From: urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs) Subject: Re: Amendments Message-ID: <8.7_#!+@smurf.sub.org> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1991 21:06:16 Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG References: <1455@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> <1476@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> Lines: 20 In comp.org.eff.talk, article <1476@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>, learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes: < In article bei@dogface (Bob Izenberg) writes: < < >I've named five functions that one computer performs right here in the < >apartment. < < That's part of the problem, dont you know. We can only define it in terms of < the growing number of functions, different strokes for different folks. < But it shouldn't be. If there's no functional difference, I see no reason not to extend the protection of the law / constitution / whatever. On the other hand, if something is illegal, such an extension on functional grounds is debatable at best; I don't know about the US, but in Germany it's expressly forbidden after certain bad experiences half a century ago... -- Matthias Urlichs -- urlichs@smurf.sub.org -- urlichs@smurf.ira.uka.de /(o\ Humboldtstrasse 7 - 7500 Karlsruhe 1 - FRG -- +49-721-621127(0700-2330) \o)/