3 ms·
Under that interpretation, I'm curious what you view as different than IBM vs Compaq about the original PC bios?
by e1ven 7y ago
Under that interpretation, I'm curious what you view as different than IBM vs Compaq about the original PC bios?
- bitwize 7y agoThe law is the law. Wishing it were different doesn't make it so. Which means that yes, Compaq and other PC clone makers may have broken the law by reimplementing the PC BIOS. The BIOS API does not depend on named functions but rather on specific values appearing in CPU registers, so I'm not sure how copyright applies to that. Maybe a "structure, sequence, and organization" argument à la Whelan v. Jaslow.
- wtallis 7y ago> The BIOS API does not depend on named functions but rather on specific values appearing in CPU registers, so I'm not sure how copyright applies to that Do you have any reasoning for treating magic numbers different from English-like names for the purpose of determining copyright eligibility?
- bitwize 7y agoNo, I don't. Which only supports the copyrightability of the BIOS API, and the illegality of BIOS clones (and hence, early PC clones).