Software Copyrights

[CajunCenturion]

Should copyright law or patent law apply?
Lawsuit filed to prohibit copyright protection of software

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Dollie]

Software is a written work, but it can also be a mechanical process, depending on what it is doing.

I would think that copyright law would apply first, BUT, a patent protecting the code would be needed in this litigious society the lawyers have bred.

Considering the precendence of this lawsuit, in the future people will need to cover their biscuits in every way they possibly can.... trademark, patent, copyright, proof of ownership, licenses for proof that the software used to write the other software was legal....

I love this part of the article: "Aharonian argues in his complaint that software copyright laws violate the right to due process enshrined in the U.S. Constitution because they do not provide clear boundaries for appropriate use."

Yeah, the only appropriate use with copyrights is "Used with the permission of (copyright holder)" or the copyright is violated. (Although it's up to the copyright holder to bring up the copyright violations.) That's too difficult to understand!

This yo-yo thinks he's going after the Microsoft's of the world, and is not thinking of the thousands of programmers who hold tightly to their copyrights on their own hard work.

This will be interesting to watch.... I better start getting patent papers ready just in case.....

 

[lionelhill]

If copyright were ever found not to apply, it would lead to a rash of ridiculous, unrealistic, and probably unnecessarily restrictive patents from anyone who can afford to cobble one together, and many massive arguments about whether they apply or not.

But there is a certain logic to this: All those pretentious people who called their piece of program an "Engine" (notice: always spelt with a big "E") now find that the law treats it like an engine and not like a piece of literature....

 

[SQLSister]

So if I patent the IF statement, will everyone who uses one have to pay me?

Questions about posting. See faq183-874

 

[hilfy]

You can't patent the IF statement - there's too much "prior art" to prove that it's already in use. Patents are only applicable if you're the first to develop a specific idea/function/whatever and can prove that no one else is using the same idea/function/whatever.

-Dell

 

[fredericofonseca]

But you can patent scroll bars, "click over link on a web page" and other similar things.

see

http://swpat.ffii.org/index.en.html

for something that is annoying load of people on Europe.


Regards

Frederico Fonseca
SysSoft Integrated Ltd

http://www.syssoft-int.com

 

[pmonett]

And you can patent for "one-click" functionality on the web - although the mouse click is rather public domain.

I think there is way too much mayhem going on with patents at the moment, and the approach to protecting software is all wrong.

The fact that Amazon succeeded in sueing Barnes & Noble when the latter tried to implement a one-click ordering function is sheer idiocy. When cars came around, did Ford attack all competition on the basis that he made the steering wheel first ? I don't think so.

You should definitely be able to sue if your competitor stole your code. But just because someone else works to emulate one of your ideas is not a valid excuse in the software arena.

Pascal.

 

[MasterRacker]

There needs to be some sort of blend of copyright and patent that allows for fair profit for work but also allows the state of the art to advance. State of the art, after all, is a collection of everyones best practices.

The American system has definitely gone overboard on patents. The EU is debating this stuff, trying to avoid the same fate. One Example:

http://www.theregister.com/2004/12/14/patent_directive/

Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...

 

[chiph]

When cars came around, did Ford attack all competition on the basis that he made the steering wheel first ? I don't think so.

Actually, they did patent the direction in which you turn the window crank (remember those?) to lower the window -- this is why Fords go one direction, and GM & Chryslers go the other way.

I think this happens (software patents) when a company feels that a process or invention is essential to their business, is a key product differentiator, and doesn't present a low barrer to entry to the competition.

Chip H.


____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[pmonett]

Right.

So it would seem that today's "business practices" have been cooking for a long time already.

Excuse me while I go eat my hat ;-).

Pascal.