Xref: utzoo alt.activism:873 comp.misc:6153 misc.legal:8801
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!emory!phssra
From: phssra@mathcs.emory.edu (Scott R. Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,comp.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: [randy@bu-cs.BU.EDU: Fight User Interface Copyright: Picket Lotus]
Message-ID: <4052@emory.mathcs.emory.edu>
Date: 19 May 89 16:01:40 GMT
References: <31234@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <2889@buengc.BU.EDU>
Reply-To: phssra@emory.UUCP (Scott Robert Anderson)
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Department of Physics, Emory University, Atlanta
Lines: 20

In article <2889@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>If the discovery of room-temperature fusion can be
>patented, and the equations in the description of that discovery can be
>copyrighted, and you consider that nobody invented fusion, they just
>corraled it, then it is only _more_ just that something unique and
>created whole from the capabilities of a class of machinery deserves
>even more to be made the property of the individual who created it.

The discovery of room-temperature fusion *cannot* be patented.  The equations
in the description of that discovery *cannot* be copyrighted.  What *can* be
patented is the particular methodology through which the phenomenon is
produced.  And this has to be precisely spelled out.  If someone else comes up
with a different way to achieve the same result (e.g. using something besides
palladium), then that *wouldn't* be covered by the patent.

*
  *      **                  Scott Robert Anderson      gatech!emoryu1!phssra
   *   *    *    **          phssra@unix.cc.emory.edu   phssra@emoryu1.bitnet
    * *      * *    * **
     *        *      *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *