3 ms·
I think that’s what they meant. See “only.”
by jonathanyc 8y ago
I think that’s what they meant. See “only.”
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoCan you explain further, that doesn't make sense.
- PebblesRox 8y agoI think the idea is that the blueprint’s copywrite doesn’t give sufficient protection to keep someone from using the invention (since they can reverse-engineer based on the actual machine). Only a patent can actually protect in this case.
- rhizome 8y agoDo you mean the "only" that's followed by "not by copyright?"
- jonathanyc 8y agoYes, an almost universal trait of human languages is that they include redundancies for error correction. Reread the post the OP is replying to and then read the OP’s comment.
- rhizome 8y agoThanks, Sheldon.
- jonathanyc 8y agoSeriously, let me know if I can help you understand—I’m not sure why you are getting so upset about this. I apologize if I’ve somehow got you on a bad day and if this is not your usual self.
- tehabe 8y agoI mistyped, I wanted to say, that you can create your own blueprints by studying a machine. But when your invention is patented this implementation is protected. But in software it is not about the implementation (because that's already protected via copyright) it is about the idea behind the implementation. Which even prohibits different implementations.