On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:53:14PM +0000, Mark Evans wrote:
However, I do think that copyright works quite well in its current form, at least in this country. If I write a piece of software then it's mine,
The problems with copyright is that IMHO only makes sense to have either long term which covers only actual copying or short term which has wider scope.
However what we are tending to end up with is long term "copyright" which also has other aspects, sometimes ending up more as a "useright".
Also so called "harmonization" appears to in practice mean the world doing things the American way (The US started with copyright which whilst quite draconian and even somewhat patent like was short term. But has been stretched until the regular copyright term is longer than the average human lifespan.)
You're right about copyright being stretched and in principle and practice patenting and copyright are just two sides of the same coin IMO. The fact is that they are no longer used with their original intent to protect the small time inventor or business.
in the same way that if I write a book it is also mine. You are free to re-use any ideas from my software; you are only restricted from copying the actual code I have written in order to do so.
If you follow the American model this is no longer the case. A "derived work" has it's copyright held by the original copyright holder. Which is why you will see such things as "fan fiction" covered with disclaimers about not owning the *characters*...
If I want to give my software away (which I do) then I can do so via the GPL and be assured that copyright law will prevent anyone from ripping off the code that I have written.
The patent situation is tending towards the ridiculous. Patents are allegedly designed to protect R&D investments, but this is clearly not how they are used in practice. Consider James Dyson - the cost of patenting his invention through the years before production started nearly
Whilst in theory Mr Dyson is exactly the kind of person patents are ment to be for. To protect someone's novel ideas from being ripped off by a pre existing company...
(Note also that in the US both copyright and patents derive from the same clause in the constitution. Which dosn't actually require either. Simply that the mechanisms used serve to encourage progress of "science and useful arts" and the disemination of the same.)
Well at the moment it does anything but and the constitution is ignored in many other areas too.
bankrupted him. Now consider IBM patenting a method for automatically moving a search dialog when the search highlights a term hidden beneath the dialog. Patents are used by people who already have plenty of money
Also you end up with the senario where old ideas gain patents simply because they use a computer...
and the clever patent lawyers can run rings around the patent examiners - the days of Einstein working in a patent office are long gone. The guy in Australia patenting the wheel was a fairly graphic illustration of this. What technically clued-up person in their right mind is going to work for peanuts in a patent office when they can jump onto the IP scam/bandwagon themselves?
in order to make life difficult for potential competitors. They do not provide any realistic protection for the small inventor, or the company that doesn't have the resources to employ a team of lawyers to enforce a patent.
IIRC there have been cases of people enforcing patents through LIP, but not only do quite a few judges dislike non lawyers litigating in patent cases if someone is spending all their time in court they can't do much to develop their invention.
The problem is the big companies abusing the current IP laws. MS in particular employs 600 lawyers. With there cash mountain they're unstoppable in court, they bog all litigants in IP cases down in expensive lawsuits and drive them out of business. Stac won their case but were put out of business by MS well before the settlement - even though Stac won the case they lost big. Which is why independent software vendors who come up with something novel sell out to MS - they're made an offer they can't refuse. Microsoft are no longer primarily a tech company, they're a legal company. I see that BT are trying to jump on this sordid little bandwagon and sue some ISP for infringing their `hyperlink' patent. I'd stop BT providing my 'phone line in protest but then I'd have to do without. Another bloody monopoly!
The current storm about digital rights management is, as far as I can see, pretty much irrelevant because it's provably impossible to implement. It
But many of the people involved and those making the decisons simply do not understand that. What they want is literally "magic". (I don't mean the Clarke kind either.)
The decisions on introducing IP legislation is made at the behest of firms like MS. They're on to a loser eventually but it buys them some time to dominate the market even more aggressively by using law bought to order. The American political system is undoubtedly as corrupt as anything on this planet and FWIW their legal sytem sucks too in that the more money you've got, the better chance you have of winning your case.
has about as much relevance as would a law passed to change the acceleration due to gravity. However, the possibility of software patents
Legislatures in the past have attempted to redefine universal constants by statute. e.g. PI...
becoming legal in this country is seriously worrying.
Being essentially a client state they'll try and go for it in this country but I think the Europeans might have their doubts about it - I guess we'll just have to wait & see. -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/