[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The Grounds for Appeal
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The Grounds for Appeal
- From: Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 02:18:06 -0800 (PST)
- In-Reply-To: <20011201013753.A12230@clausfischer.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
--- Claus Fischer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Also we should not concede that the code is functional because
> it is not. I have never seen code that was functional.
> The only thing that is functional is code being executed on a
> computer. The combination of a computer and code can be functional.
> This would be a device. The computer, without a doubt, is a device
> in its own right. The computer with the code being executed on it
> is perhaps a circumvention device. But code without a computer is
> not a device, and is not functional. Never, ever.
> Not unless we give yield to paranormal phenomena of `intelligence
> condensating into matter' or other stuff for SF movies. All very nice,
> and it may even have had some validity during the first second of
> the universe. But never since.
I couldn't agree with you more on this. I think the key point for the next
phase is to hammer the distinctions between these three concepts:
1. pure speech expressing functional ideas
2. "functionality" = a device capable of allowing a human to perform a task
3. conduct = the actual act of exercising a device
As you said, functionality exists when a physical machine (a computer) can
enable a human to do a task. This occurs when the software to control that
computer is "installed". This is a clearly defined act, generally performed by
the computer owner. Software that is not installed on appropriate hardware is
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.