a computer program is not a patentable invention

I remember the period and some of the debates that raged at the time and, vaguely, the reasons why some software vendors wanted control. At least, what hit the general newspapers at the time. What I saw in the papers was that end users sold their software to someone else when they didn't want the software anymore, or rental companies would buy the software and rent it out, and the vendors wanted to make both situations impossible, somehow. In fact, it was especially in the case of rentals that there was a LOT of argument going on at the time.

None of this yet addresses itself to situations where the lack of software patents has led to "protection with teeth" in the specific case of software.

And you cannot seem to avoid hauling in the 'music industry' when struggling to press your hypothesis. I don't mean that negatively, but I am simply unable to port that into this sphere of seeing this in terms of software. That may be my own lack of imagination. But there it is. There are too many differences in medium, market and market history, and I'm sure this lack of similarity also applies to past case history, contract law, and torts, and the preparation of courts and judges to make well-informed findings, as well.

In any case, I just can't get see your assertion regarding software protection getting stronger by removing software patents. Copyright already exists in the US. It is also enforced, as well. You, yourself, gave an example of this in another post. Patents are, as another poster mentioned, a veritable mine field (and besides that, I already have taken the opinion that patents no longer have much value to anyone other than large companies, anyway, these days.)

What would help is a showing from a developed country (in the EU?) where a similar outcome followed as you say it would, with details in evidence, as you assert would occur here in the US. Namely, where the lack of patents there has led to _stronger_ protections with more teeth in them than here in the US, as a total picture.

To be frank, I think the combination of patents AND copyright in the US has more teeth than copyright only and I cannot see how the removal of software patents would put MORE teeth into a situation. Copyright is one method for some domain, patents are another method of another domain (possibly overlapping in areas) and the two, combined, is more than either alone. Even after the courts have a hand in it.

Perhaps I'm not communicating well and am just blind enough that you cannot seem to reach me, either. It's a chasm I can clearly notice, but cannot clearly see how to bridge. I know you were trying to make a clear point that others would understand well enough. Maybe others got it and I am just not smart enough to do so. I wish I were better able to follow your point.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan
Loading thread data ...

Actually, there's a strong on-going campaign by movie studios and music publishers, particularly in the USA, to change that "long time" into "forever". And if they ever get their wish, that'll be an outright disaster.

Reply to
Hans-Bernhard Bröker

If that were actually true, pulp fiction wouldn't exist.

Reply to
Hans-Bernhard Bröker

Copyright in the USA (with other countries following on obediently) gets extended every time Mickey Mouse is nearing the public domain. Copyright lengths (and patent lengths) are already a disaster - it's just a question of how much worse they can get. I don't really object to people having rights over their creations and who can copy them - I can't see how there is any moral or ethical justification for these rights being valid 70 years after the author/creator is dead.

Reply to
David Brown

David Brown Inscribed thus:

The simple answer would be that the copyright ceases on the death of the originator. That would certainly put a dent into Disney and Elvis...

--
Best Regards:
                     Baron.
Reply to
Baron

I beleive the longest Copyright period by special Act of Parliament is for Peter Pan, all royalties have been set to go to Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital in London. The most recent Act set this for=20 impertuity, except for school 'plays'.=20

The song Happy Birthday had special copyright conditions as well.

--=20 Paul Carpenter | snipped-for-privacy@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk PC Services Timing Diagram Font GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny For those web sites you hate

Reply to
Paul Carpenter

This is how the business plan for example romance novels works. The publisher owns the copyright for a particular story formula and hires authors to write novels using the formula. Copyrights keep others from duplicating the story lines.

w..

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

Reply to
Walter Banks

One that I am personally familiar with is the owner of a software games company had a very leather jacket that made him look like Indiana Jones and was successfully sued for having his own image on his product with a generic background of a central American jungle scene.

Search for details on some of the Getty Museum copyright suites. Not all of them are exact images.

Walter..

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

Reply to
Walter Banks

Why should education and personal use be exempted, or for that matter why should library of congress be exempted?

A counter example is Alex Haley's book about Kunta Kinte.

Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights. The choice to exercise them is not always made.

w..

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

Reply to
Walter Banks

Can't find anything much here. I've tried the following:

+"Getty Museum" copyright suit Getty Museum copyright suit +"Getty Museum" "copyright suit" indiana jones

and so on.

I found this, but upon reading further saw it wasn't anything close:

formatting link

I did try. Maybe your familiarity can get you closer to something usable? Best of all would be a court document with a legal decision expressed, of course.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan

I believe educational research purposes already are exempted, aren't they? Under "fair use," limited copying without the permission of the owner is allowed for some kinds of teaching and research, if I recall. And there are exceptions also for the (entire?) reproduction by libraries and archives, memory serving.

Regarding personal use, I didn't mean to suggest borrowing a library copy, copying it for personal use, then returning the original to a library. Though I sometimes wonder. I was thinking more about making a second copy to hold elsewhere against the risk of fire or water damage, for example. I certainly would also consider just buying another copy. But I think that may be allowed. Also, I believe there is a commercial value consideration in law in the US, and the courts look at the market impact of the action taken as to whether or not it is 'fair use.'

Anyway, that is what I was thinking about when I wrote less, before.

I was addressing myself to your assertion about violating "the copyright of a novel just by using the same plot lines." A single example is enough to muddy up that water.

By whom? The owners? If that's all this is about, then you seem to be arguing that owners don't now pursue copyright as much because they have patents, but that if software patents are removed from the picture that owners will then pursue the copyright violations more than before? Is that your point?

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan

David, this is spot on.

Dimiter

Reply to
Didi

The comment you are referring to came in response to the apparent joy someone made at the start of the reversal of software patents. My arguments have been consistently that copyright law may be tougher with a body of precedents than software patents.

I base that on significantly longer protection and court precedents over damage awards that could be based on actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally change actual over all practice. Software patents give a lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of redefined claims for short period of time. Copyright gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations for a long period of time.

Would the dropping of software patents make copyright protection stronger? I don't but the sheer threshold of getting a software patent made a lot of patentable software relatively unprotected because the authors didn't know that copyright protection could also have provided them with a lot of adequate protection through a court system that had dealt with copyright cases

w..

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

Reply to
Walter Banks

So which colour Mills & Boon do you write?

Reply to
terryc

They are not cart blanche (sp), but under fair use, e.g. parts could be reproduced to illustrate educational points, for analysis, for crit?que, etc.

>
Reply to
terryc

So the upshot is that because patents exist, some folks go for that and in the process fail to consider copyright?

I must be having a bad day. I'll re-read this tomorrow.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan

And of course they *should* be based on domain expert witnesses, impartial and in good faith.

Groetjes Albert

--

--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Albert van der Horst

I would agree. Copyright cases have been generally less expensive than patent cases. I don't know many patent cases that haven't been won without very deep pockets or a legal firm as a partner. Individuals and small publishing houses do win copyright cases .

Reply to
Walter Banks

You did nothing of the sort. You demonstrated the truth strength of deep pockets in the US. The legislation and ideology of a country is not god-given but it is there to serve its strength, lest it perishes. As such the fundamentalist "freedom for the rich" ideology of the US is on the loosing site compared to the more centralist ideology of China. Especially the situation around IP is becoming counter productive. IP is about things that don't exist (only the expression of IP exist), and is a poor base for an economy.

There is only so much military superiority can do to compensate for economic weakness. Not that the outcome of a confrontation between US and China would be certain. The US might run out of spare parts after two weeks of fighting ;-) , and there are no businessmen in China willing to deliver in defiance of their government (as US patriots would).

Groetjes Albert

--

--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Albert van der Horst

No, it is spot on. Actually I stored the article, in order to discuss it with friends. Thanks.

Groetjes Albert

--

--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Albert van der Horst

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.