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.)
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.)
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...
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 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.)
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.
-- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763