Comments on: Are Software Copyrights Bad Too?

By: Don Marti

Don Marti — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:41:59 +0000

There’s a blurry line between “readable source code” and “precise descriptions of algorithms” anyway. So it makes sense to treat “programs” and “books about programs” the same way for copyright purposes.

By: Don Marti

Don Marti — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:41:59 +0000

By: Chris Brand

Chris Brand — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:42:04 +0000

Here's a thought.

One of the key differences between copyrights and patents is that you only get the copyright when you've actually created the thing to be protected.

With patents, you're actually safer not to actually develop any products, because then you can't be sued by the other companies that managed to patent the same thing you did.

By: Chris Brand

Chris Brand — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:23:34 +0000

Gary - that is the problem. The copyright deal is that the creator gets a monopoly for a while and the public gets to benefit from the fact that the work was created. If the creator's monopoly lasts for the entire useful life of the work, that's not fair to the public.

By: Chris Brand

Chris Brand — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:42:04 +0000

Here's a thought.

One of the key differences between copyrights and patents is that you only get the copyright when you've actually created the thing to be protected.

With patents, you're actually safer not to actually develop any products, because then you can't be sued by the other companies that managed to patent the same thing you did.

By: Chris Brand

Chris Brand — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:23:34 +0000

By: Gary McGath

Gary McGath — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:14:44 +0000

I don’t see any problem with long terms on software copyrights. By the time a program is more than a few years old, it’s obsolete anyway.

By: Gary McGath

Gary McGath — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:14:44 +0000

I don’t see any problem with long terms on software copyrights. By the time a program is more than a few years old, it’s obsolete anyway.