Linked by weildish on Sat 24th Jan 2009 22:44 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 345491
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-13
Software is already protected by copyright law. And it doesn't represent an invention, since it is by nature built upon existing constructs. Put another way, should an author be able to patent their style of writing to ensure that other authors don't try to emulate it? Do we want to see books, televisions shows or movies covered by patents?
Patents were created to protect physical inventions, not abstract concepts or ideas. Copyright law is sufficient for protecting IP.
Riiiiight....
Getting back to my original example, why do authors or writers or artists bother creating original works if others can copy them at will for free? Oh, wait, they can't. Copyright law.
There are no unique concepts in software design. There is nothing in any software application that is so revolutionary or groundbreaking that it deserves some special recognition that prevents anybody else from trying something similar.
You're arguing that IBM should own privilege over word processors, or that Apple should own privilege over GUIs (because they negotiated the right to use Xerox's original work), and that nobody else should extend those concepts because of the investment those companies made. Do you really want to live in a world where companies can stake their ground and prohibit competition just by becoming the first to come up with an idea for software? Would we be better served if all home users were forced to use Mac OS 1.0 or massive monochrome DisplayWriters in business, if those were patented?
And how does that change things? You just said that companies should have the right to protect their innovations, and now you're saying that others should have the right to see detailed access of those innovations and then find a different way of implementing them.
How do you protect code in a patent?
Perhaps software patents should last for a shorter time, say 7 years. That would better track the way progress is made in this industry.
Software patents shouldn't exist. Ideas were never intended to be patented. Concepts were never meant to be patented. The ability to patent abstract thought is the antithesis to innovation. Patents should protect physical inventions, period. Copyright law protects software to the best benefit for authors and users alike.