<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'>Well, the implementation is copyrighted but the method is patented. You could get a copyright on a piece of software that you couldn't patent (prior art, patent expired, etc.), but that wouldn't stop someone else from coding another version from scratch--a so-called "clean-room implementation". This is just meant to answer your question about the difference, not defend the software patents as they exist today! I don't claim to be an expert, but that's my understanding of it.<br><br>Scott<br><hr id="zwchr"><div style="color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>From: </b>"Pete Hardie" <pete.hardie@gmail.com><br><b>To: </b>"Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts" <ale@ale.org><br><b>Sent: </b>Sunday, November 25, 2012 7:11:24 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [ale] Stallman: Still the True Champion of Intellectual Freedom<br><br><font><font face="georgia,serif">I was wondering recently why software, which is pretty much universally agreed to be subject to copyright (hell, Copyleft depen<font>ds on it being so), is still allowed to be subject to patents - are those not contradictory stances? Patents protect things which cannot be copyrighted.</font><br>
</font></font><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">Pete Hardie<br>--------<br>Better Living Through Bitmaps<br></div></div></div></body></html>