Should we change how we approach copyright law, and IP?

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

You do realize Marilyn Monroe's footage of singing ' Happy Birthday' to JFK just became a courtcase don't you

Didn't know, still don't care.

Designing patent law is important because it has real consequences and doing the job badly will stiffle innovation and progress, either by making it not rewarding enough, or by keeping discoveries unshared and therefore underexploited.

IP laws on cultural stuff has ultimately trivial consequences. Maybe some works are penalized by it, maybe some investors are unjustly rewarded by it, maybe some lawyers make a parasitic living off it. But is it slowing down culture? Not appreciably. Even with the laws as they are, we can still make derivative work, and there are plenty of existing franchises being exploited. What would more permissive laws bring to the table?

[Nightbat®]

Looking at software: more innovation

also look at how much is wasted upholding copyright that has such a long expiration term
think we can't use judges and lawyers better?

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

Looking at software: more innovation

Software's not cultural, it's patent.

also look at how much is wasted upholding copyright that has such a long expiration term
think we can't use judges and lawyers better?

Frivolous suits are a fact, if not of life, judicial systems.

[Nightbat®]

So is murder, shall we accept that as well?

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Software's not cultural, it's patent.

Software is effectively math and it SHOULDN'T EVER BE ABLE TO BE PATENTED. (sorry, as a software developer this is a touchy subject for me). A piece of software can and should be copywriten and it should stay so as long as the author is alive just like any other piece of work (either written, musical or whatever else is covered by copyright).

EDIT: speaking of which it looks like twitter might have posted a net loss last year if it weren't for a large patent payment to IBM.

Twitter paid $36 million over IBM patent threat @ Ars Technica

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Dextro

Software is effectively math and it SHOULDN'T EVER BE ABLE TO BE PATENTED. (sorry, as a software developer this is a touchy subject for me). A piece of software can and should be copywriten and it should stay so as long as the author is alive just like any other piece of work (either written, musical or whatever else is covered by copyright).

EDIT: speaking of which it looks like twitter might have posted a net loss last year if it weren't for a large patent payment to IBM.

Twitter paid $36 million over IBM patent threat @ Ars Technica

Software is a tough issue. Patents can be used to protect quality and use (in which the inventor can sue the misuser for infringement of property rights under law) by putting the threat of a large financial loss on the defendant; however, the tricky part is keeping the law to ensure that it is not used for financial gain at the expense of innovation and alternate altruistic uses.

I work as an IT engineer, and given that my country lacks proper patent and copyright laws, every developer is in fear that they would get an empty sack when their code is copied and sold by a competitor that infiltrated their systems. Even worse, it is taken over by the government with only a one-time compensation.

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Software is a tough issue. Patents can be used to protect quality and use (in which the inventor can sue the misuser for infringement of property rights under law) by putting the threat of a large financial loss on the defendant; however, the tricky part is keeping the law to ensure that it is not used for financial gain at the expense of innovation and alternate altruistic uses.

I work as an IT engineer, and given that my country lacks proper patent and copyright laws, every developer is in fear that they would get an empty sack when their code is copied and sold by a competitor that infiltrated their systems. Even worse, it is taken over by the government with only a one-time compensation.

Those fears relate to copyright and not in any way patents. A software patent involves establishing a monopoly on a process of doing something which means the algorithm and NOT It's specific implementation. That's why a software patent is so scary (and dangerous imho). Software algorithms are just logical constructs which means that it's incredibly easy to patent something Borderline essential like the method by which you execute an addition of two numbers.

Copyright on the other hand protects a specific implementation of a function that adds two numbers instead of the function it performs. Copyright prevents you from straight up using someone's code, patents prevent you from even writting code that does the same thing regardless of whether you copy the code or not. Imagine if writers could patent setences, that should give you an idea of what a software patent is and how dangerous they are.

On the other hand I find that most software developers I know don't particularly care if someone uses their work. The thing with software is that we all learn from each others work when it's freely available and the value of the programmer is more in the mental capacity to write software than it is in the software itself. Everything moves far too fast in this business for a piece of software too actually be worth that much on it's own without someone who knows how it works.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

So is murder, shall we accept that as well?

And what does that have to do with anything?

You're worried about a handful of lawsuits for decades-old works? Compare that with the billions spent by big tech companies to patent troll each other. Rather than the time of the judges, worry about the time of the lawmakers.

Originally Posted by Dextro

Software is effectively math and it SHOULDN'T EVER BE ABLE TO BE PATENTED. (sorry, as a software developer this is a touchy subject for me).

I also make a living developing software. I don't particularly care.

A piece of software can and should be copywriten and it should stay so as long as the author is alive just like any other piece of work (either written, musical or whatever else is covered by copyright).

You know that Nightbat and I were arguing because copyright is worse than patents, right?

Besides, copyright is for cultural stuff, while patents are for technical stuff. Software, insofar as it can be protected (which is another debate), is in the realm of patents.

Originally Posted by Dextro

Those fears relate to copyright and not in any way patents. A software patent involves establishing a monopoly on a process of doing something which means the algorithm and NOT It's specific implementation. That's why a software patent is so scary (and dangerous imho). Software algorithms are just logical constructs which means that it's incredibly easy to patent something Borderline essential like the method by which you execute an addition of two numbers.

It's easy to try (if you have the money). There are however, in theory, restrictions on what you can patent. Granted, that means gray area and even more money needed for lawyers.

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I also make a living developing software. I don't particularly care.

I think we all should care a bit. When even copyright is being exploited to try and patent a Language (Oracle regarding Java) we have a problem.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

It's easy to try (if you have the money). There are however, in theory, restrictions on what you can patent. Granted, that means gray area and even more money needed for lawyers.

Depends on where you work. If you're in Europe you're safe since you can't really patent ideas. If you're in the US you should basically consider that a patent lawsuit will be on you the moment some piece of software you wrote becomes popular enough.