Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Aug 2012 22:14 UTC
Legal "The web has been alight these past few weeks with the details of the Apple v. Samsung lawsuit. It's been a unique opportunity to peer behind the curtain of how these two companies operate, as the trial seeks to answer the question: did Samsung copy Apple? But there's actually another question that I think is much more interesting to the future of innovation in the technology industry: regardless of whether the courts say that Samsung copied Apple or not, would we all be better off if we allowed - even encouraged - companies to copy one another?" This is very relevant.
Permalink for comment 531584
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I agree with this
by obsidian on Tue 21st Aug 2012 01:20 UTC
obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

I think the whole patents and copyright area is a real mess at the moment.

Copyrights, for example. The Wikipedia article mentions that in most of the world, they last for "the life of the author plus 50 or 70 years".
For computer software, **how ridiculous is that?**

It would be REAL common-sense to put the copyright term (for software) at *20* years. In 20 years, any company could make an absolute fortune out of a given app, and they could *still* have the copyright over any versions of the code released *less than* 20 years ago. They could *still* charge for that software *and* for support.

So, for example, FooApp-Aug-20-1992 would now have just been released into the public domain, but FooApp-Aug-25-1992 and later versions would still be under copyright (until the 20-year-term ticked over for them). See?
Clean, simple, common-sense and FAIR.

If such law were in force, we could look forward to Win95 being released as P.D. in three more years.
You reckon MS really cares much about Win95?
I doubt it. So, given that it isn't even SOLD any more by them - why not have it released as PD?
Why have the code locked up for decades more?

Edited 2012-08-21 01:24 UTC

Reply Score: 6