For work created after 1978, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. For jointly created or corporate authorship, the copyright expires the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation. Long enough, but not never, ever.
Because software does not protect in any way what the software does. If I systematically rewrite code to do exactly what the original does, using minor variations from the original, I have not violated any copyright.
If I copy all the names and numbers from the phone book and publish a phone book of my own, with my own header and format, I do not violate the original copyright.
Copyright is totally ineffective for ideas or fact embedded in the words or symbols.
If you systematically rewrote from the original source, your version could be considered a derivative work, which would violate copyright law. The same could apply to reverse engineering. The problems, however, are (at least) twofold: 1. If you changed it enough, it would make it difficult to prove it was derivative. 2. Copyright law doesn't even address the concept of reverse engineering.
This would make Google very happy, I'm sure, which is why GG is suggesting it. But, no, as it exists today, copyright law would not protect and promote innovation is the tech industry. (And, it also doesn't protect hardware design at all. And, as hardware and software become more closely integrated, it would be a big mess to sort out what's what. Another point that Google might like, since it would make it easier to ripoff the competition and hide behind a smokescreen of confusion.)
You prefer a 120 year Copyright versus a 20/25 year patent?
What difference does it make? Googleguy simply mirrors the Google agenda - and Google has demonstrated that they don't respect copyrights any more than patents. Read up on the history of Google Books, for example.
He may be right, but his editorializing on the subject he is litigating makes me think we might be better served by his turning in his judicial robes in exchange for a Congessional seat.
You hit the nail on the head. At the least, he should recuse himself from hearing any patent litigation cases.
And ineffective for specific processes, like data detectors, which are, in fact, a sort of machine, making patent law, given the current state of patent and copyright law, the proper venue for protecting these inventions.
What difference does it make? Googleguy simply mirrors the Google agenda - and Google has demonstrated that they don't respect copyrights any more than patents. Read up on the history of Google Books, for example.
Well, GG was just throwing that out there for discussion, he wasn't saying it was a good idea... Ha, ha, ha... At least that's what he usually ends up claiming when he makes a particularly bone-headed or completely false post that he gets called out for.
I agree with most of what he said except for only major industries like Pharmaceutical Companies needing them. There are companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars on software development. Why shouldn't they be protected? As a developer, I feel strongly that software patents need major reform. There needs to be at least some protection to very specific procedures. None of this "system that holds data that points to data" nonsense.
Furthermore, patent law does not protect abstract ideas (software or not). It is expected to protect inventions or IMPLEMENTATIONS of ideas. You can't patent an idea.
yes. so it appears that Apple was not able to make the irrefutable assertion that Motorola implemented (as an example)
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."
-John Carmack
That's why patents are important, versus say, trademarks.
Most developers, including me, would agree with Posner. Software patents are evil, unnecessary and make our job of delivering innovative software harder.
The bean counters in our organisations might disagree though.
Most developers, including me, would agree with Posner. Software patents are evil, unnecessary and make our job of delivering innovative software harder.
yes, i agree. which leads me to believe that most people, here, who disagree with Posner do not / have not ever worked as the software application developer.
Seems to me (not being any kind of expert in American law) that Posner is using the wrong platform at the wrong time for the wrong message.
He may well have an interest in patent litigation, which is why he requested a case of this nature in the first place but having sat through two years of this, he seems to be using it as a springboard to get himself heard for an agenda that is separate to the case he just dismissed.
Whatever his intention in speaking to the press is he will be aware of the implications and ready to answer for them. I wonder if his intellectual curiosity in this field has put at risk his objectivity thereby leaving both parties feeling that they just wasted a lot of time and money and still did not get a fair hearing.
If his intention is to raise true level of debate he may well be successful and he may even be a catalyst in changing the system to better reflect the needs of software innovators.
Any change will almost certainly take years and in the meantime it is only reasonable to expect that the current laws offering protection to all industries be properly safeguarded by fair hearings and sound judgements by courts and judges with a respect for the law as it stands until a new law (or laws) supersede it/them.
Talk about a bunch of unqualified whiners on AppleInsider!!!
Do you really think "1-click shopping" is worthy of the same level of patent protection as a drug that takes 10 years to develop? Most software patents are absurd at best, and should never have been granted. They might be worthy of a 3-5 year monopoly, but that is stretching things. The same goes for business process patents.
Copyright can currently protect Apple quite adequately, and there might be some room to move design patents into this realm, albeit for less than 100 years...
The real question is how do you reform things like h.264 and wireless standards, where some of these patents do involve tremendous investment, but they still hinder progress.
While I may not be a lawyer, I have been following IP issues for 15 years. Anything in our economy that just makes more CPA or Law jobs is non-productive.
For work created after 1978, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. For jointly created or corporate authorship, the copyright expires the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation. Long enough, but not never, ever.
And what happens when that date of expiry rolls around? Disney forces Congress to extend it. Disney will always force Congress to extend copyright. Therefore copyright is permanent.
And don't complain about my use of 'always' there. Compared to some of the other atrocities committed by Disney that have gone completely unchecked and ignored, their ability to pay off people to extend copyright terms is small change. They'll get their extension.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Copyrights never expire. Ever.
For work created after 1978, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. For jointly created or corporate authorship, the copyright expires the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation. Long enough, but not never, ever.
Sounds to me like grounds for recusal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Why wouldn't copyright laws fill the need quite nicely if the concern is truly "copying"?
You prefer a 120 year Copyright versus a 20/25 year patent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias
Because software does not protect in any way what the software does. If I systematically rewrite code to do exactly what the original does, using minor variations from the original, I have not violated any copyright.
If I copy all the names and numbers from the phone book and publish a phone book of my own, with my own header and format, I do not violate the original copyright.
Copyright is totally ineffective for ideas or fact embedded in the words or symbols.
If you systematically rewrote from the original source, your version could be considered a derivative work, which would violate copyright law. The same could apply to reverse engineering. The problems, however, are (at least) twofold: 1. If you changed it enough, it would make it difficult to prove it was derivative. 2. Copyright law doesn't even address the concept of reverse engineering.
This would make Google very happy, I'm sure, which is why GG is suggesting it. But, no, as it exists today, copyright law would not protect and promote innovation is the tech industry. (And, it also doesn't protect hardware design at all. And, as hardware and software become more closely integrated, it would be a big mess to sort out what's what. Another point that Google might like, since it would make it easier to ripoff the competition and hide behind a smokescreen of confusion.)
What difference does it make? Googleguy simply mirrors the Google agenda - and Google has demonstrated that they don't respect copyrights any more than patents. Read up on the history of Google Books, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
He may be right, but his editorializing on the subject he is litigating makes me think we might be better served by his turning in his judicial robes in exchange for a Congessional seat.
You hit the nail on the head. At the least, he should recuse himself from hearing any patent litigation cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
..and there you have it. Ineffective for ideas...
And ineffective for specific processes, like data detectors, which are, in fact, a sort of machine, making patent law, given the current state of patent and copyright law, the proper venue for protecting these inventions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
What difference does it make? Googleguy simply mirrors the Google agenda - and Google has demonstrated that they don't respect copyrights any more than patents. Read up on the history of Google Books, for example.
Well, GG was just throwing that out there for discussion, he wasn't saying it was a good idea... Ha, ha, ha... At least that's what he usually ends up claiming when he makes a particularly bone-headed or completely false post that he gets called out for.
Smart Judge....
I agree with most of what he said except for only major industries like Pharmaceutical Companies needing them. There are companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars on software development. Why shouldn't they be protected? As a developer, I feel strongly that software patents need major reform. There needs to be at least some protection to very specific procedures. None of this "system that holds data that points to data" nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Furthermore, patent law does not protect abstract ideas (software or not). It is expected to protect inventions or IMPLEMENTATIONS of ideas. You can't patent an idea.
yes. so it appears that Apple was not able to make the irrefutable assertion that Motorola implemented (as an example)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,663,607.PN.&OS=PN/7,663,607&RS=PN/7,663,607
in a similar fashion, at the software level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwjvan
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."
-John Carmack
That's why patents are important, versus say, trademarks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
ATTENTION DEVELOPERS:
I hope you're sitting before you read this.
Most developers, including me, would agree with Posner. Software patents are evil, unnecessary and make our job of delivering innovative software harder.
The bean counters in our organisations might disagree though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Most developers, including me, would agree with Posner. Software patents are evil, unnecessary and make our job of delivering innovative software harder.
yes, i agree. which leads me to believe that most people, here, who disagree with Posner do not / have not ever worked as the software application developer.
Seems to me (not being any kind of expert in American law) that Posner is using the wrong platform at the wrong time for the wrong message.
He may well have an interest in patent litigation, which is why he requested a case of this nature in the first place but having sat through two years of this, he seems to be using it as a springboard to get himself heard for an agenda that is separate to the case he just dismissed.
Whatever his intention in speaking to the press is he will be aware of the implications and ready to answer for them. I wonder if his intellectual curiosity in this field has put at risk his objectivity thereby leaving both parties feeling that they just wasted a lot of time and money and still did not get a fair hearing.
If his intention is to raise true level of debate he may well be successful and he may even be a catalyst in changing the system to better reflect the needs of software innovators.
Any change will almost certainly take years and in the meantime it is only reasonable to expect that the current laws offering protection to all industries be properly safeguarded by fair hearings and sound judgements by courts and judges with a respect for the law as it stands until a new law (or laws) supersede it/them.
Do you really think "1-click shopping" is worthy of the same level of patent protection as a drug that takes 10 years to develop? Most software patents are absurd at best, and should never have been granted. They might be worthy of a 3-5 year monopoly, but that is stretching things. The same goes for business process patents.
Copyright can currently protect Apple quite adequately, and there might be some room to move design patents into this realm, albeit for less than 100 years...
The real question is how do you reform things like h.264 and wireless standards, where some of these patents do involve tremendous investment, but they still hinder progress.
While I may not be a lawyer, I have been following IP issues for 15 years. Anything in our economy that just makes more CPA or Law jobs is non-productive.
apple should ask for a change of venue, or at the very least, a different judge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art
That's why patents are important, versus say, trademarks.
I'm not quite sure I understand your response?
What John Carmack is saying is that, at least in this case, the patent would be impeding legitimate development.
And what happens when that date of expiry rolls around? Disney forces Congress to extend it. Disney will always force Congress to extend copyright. Therefore copyright is permanent.
And don't complain about my use of 'always' there. Compared to some of the other atrocities committed by Disney that have gone completely unchecked and ignored, their ability to pay off people to extend copyright terms is small change. They'll get their extension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh
..... henchmen of the egregiously rich ....
Huh!?
When/where do you think we live -- feudal England?