Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    178

    Default Lawsuit filed to prohibit copyright protection of software

    it is a few days old just thought you should know about this

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Computer software should not be protected by copyright laws designed for music, literature and other creative works, according to a lawsuit filed in a U.S. court in San Francisco.

    Intellectual-property consultant Greg Aharonian hopes to convince the court that software makers can protect their products adequately through patents, which provide more comprehensive protection, but are difficult to obtain and expire in a shorter period of time.

    The case seeks to clarify which laws the $100 billion U.S. software industry uses to protect its products. Currently, software makers like Microsoft Corp. use both copyright and patent laws to protect their creations, as well as "clickwrap" agreements that stipulate terms of use.

    An official with a software-industry trade group said not every software product is protected by patents.

    "If you eliminated the ability to sue somebody for copyright infringement, you would eviscerate our ability to go against pirates," said Emory Simon, counselor for the Business Software Alliance, which estimates that U.S. businesses lost $6.5 billion last year to piracy.

    Aharonian argues in his complaint that software copyright laws violate the right to due process enshrined in the U.S. Constitution because they do not provide clear boundaries for appropriate use. That means industry players and courts do not have a clear idea of the rules.

    "Until you're sued and a judge makes up his mind about what is the idea and expression (at stake), no one knows," Aharonian said in an interview.

    In one well-known case, Lexmark International Inc. invoked copyright laws to prevent a competitor from making computer circuits that allow cheaper inkjet cartridges to work on its printers.

    One court ruled in Lexmark's favor in 2002, but an appeals court in October overturned that decision and allowed rival Static Control Components to sell its inkjet cartridge parts.

    Aharonian said in his complaint he does not know if he personally has run afoul of copyright laws because he has set up a database of thousands of computer programs to help software companies figure out if their products infringe on existing material.

    If the owner of any of those programs decides to sue, he could face hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties and possible jail time.

    While patents protect an idea -- say, a way to direct traffic on the Internet -- copyrights only protect the expression of that idea, usually the written code that tells the computer what to do.

    Inventors applying for a patent have to prove their idea is new and original, a process that typically takes years and costs thousands of dollars. Patents expire after 20 years.

    Anybody who scribbles a poem on the back of a cocktail napkin, by contrast, is protected by copyright laws for 70 years after their death, or 95 years if the work is owned by a corporation.

    Both the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Copyright Office began accepting applications for computer programs in the 1960s. Congress included software in copyright law in 1976.

    An official with the U.S. Copyright Office declined to comment on the case, but said copyright protection was vital for U.S. software makers.

    "I think it is fair to say it is the primary means of protecting U.S.-based software," said Kent Dunlap, principal legal advisor to the Copyright Office's general counsel.


    LINK : http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/biztec...reut/index.html

  2. #2
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    316

    Default

    More power to them!


    :up:

  3. #3
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Sticky this

  4. #4

    Default

    Intellectual-property consultant Greg Aharonian hopes to convince the court that software makers can protect their products adequately through patents
    No. Just, no.

    Software Patents are a bane on the computing industry, good only for Microsoft (who likely own more than any other company) and pissy little upstarts who like to sue Microsoft using patents that cover the creation of a ****ing button-shadow or something.

    Copyright is almost redundant by comparison. What a complete waste of ****ing time.
    Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

  5. #5
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    134

    Default

    I think copyright laws have caused so much trouble for everyone. You can't download music. You can't print your own t-shirts with Disney characters on them. You can't have a fansite for said Disney characters. Even the This Land song was said to be copyrighted to try and force that website to shut down.

    I say get rid of these laws and make it a free-for-all.

  6. #6
    Marrow Fiend
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,116

    Default

    Originally posted by utn00b

    I say get rid of these laws and make it a free-for-all.
    I think there should be laws, but they should only be invoked when the company really sees it fit. But the civil court in America has spawned this mentality of 'I see an opportunity to sue, let's sue 'em outa business', which is really unscrupulous.

  7. #7
    Redeemer
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,600

    Default

    Originally posted by Mr. Brownstone
    No. Just, no.

    Software Patents are a bane on the computing industry, good only for Microsoft (who likely own more than any other company) and pissy little upstarts who like to sue Microsoft using patents that cover the creation of a ****ing button-shadow or something.

    Copyright is almost redundant by comparison. What a complete waste of ****ing time.
    Agreed. Patent gets you exclusive rights to the process. This is a bad thing for software since that's what software boils down to: doing a process.

    If anyone wants to look at the headache software patents have caused, I suggest looking at Amazon, and then looking at Creative labs, and you should also take a look at that little unknown company that is suing half the games industry over displaying 3D graphics.

    Copyright protection and patent protection are very different. Copyright gives the holder sole distribution rights (which can be delegated). Patent holding gives you the ability to take in royalties from the selling of your item when its manufactured. I think that is the general idea if I remember from the IP law class I took for some reason beyond me.


 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright ©2009-2011 Epic Games, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Digital Point modules: Sphinx-based search vBulletin skin by CompletevB.com.