edit@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Film/Video) (04/12/90)
brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
"For thousands of years ideas have been free."
That may be so, but for hundreds of years inventions have been
----------
patentable.
----------ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (04/12/90)
In article <2536:Apr1302:34:2890@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu writes: > In article <1NT2K:Exds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > [ in reference to the European Community's proposed Copyright Directive ] >> The ability to copyright program interfaces to packages takes the already >> dubious "look-n-feel" copyrights to a new and absurd height. > > That's an understatement. > > For thousands of years ideas have been free. Now AT&T will be able to > stifle all UNIX competition by copyrighting the v7 interface; Xerox and > Apple will win their suits against Apple and Microsoft respectively on > copyright grounds and the Presentation Manager will follow the Macintosh > into the grave; RSA Incorporated will wallow in income from their new > RSA encryption copyright; Chomsky will copyright half of theoretical > computer science; and the next car you buy won't have a steering wheel. > > This frightens me. > > Followups to comp.misc. > > ---Dan Just in case you haven't heard (How could you NOT hear?)--- The Xerox case was thrown out on almost all counts... Xerox can't "win" this one... they'll be lucky if they keep the copyright on their own interface. Presentation Manager is probably going to die, but that's because it's a bad implementation, and deserves to... Microsoft Windows 3.0 will take the place of PM for MS-DOS... And you're out of your mind if you think Apple's going under... those folks in New York who wrote those "Apple is doomed" articles were probably just trying to get the stock price down so they could make a fortune when the IIfx was released (a 5% increase in stock value in 6 hours...). Try to keep up on your news reading, OK? Chad
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (04/13/90)
In article <2148@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> edit@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Film/Video) writes: > brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > "For thousands of years ideas have been free." > That may be so, but for hundreds of years inventions have been > ---------- > patentable. > ---------- Yes, but patent (and copyright) law is a balancing act between encouraging new inventions and stifling development of these inventions. Making the program interfaces of a system copyrightable swings the balance way over the wrong way. That's like copyrighting the power plug! All that does is encourage people to build new and incompatible systems for no reason other than to satisfy the lawyers and beancounters. This is (a) a direct waste of resources, and (b) an unnecessary fragmentation of the demand side of the market, which again wastes resources. -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v
brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (04/13/90)
In article <1NT2K:Exds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: [ in reference to the European Community's proposed Copyright Directive ] > The ability to copyright program interfaces to packages takes the already > dubious "look-n-feel" copyrights to a new and absurd height. That's an understatement. For thousands of years ideas have been free. Now AT&T will be able to stifle all UNIX competition by copyrighting the v7 interface; Xerox and Apple will win their suits against Apple and Microsoft respectively on copyright grounds and the Presentation Manager will follow the Macintosh into the grave; RSA Incorporated will wallow in income from their new RSA encryption copyright; Chomsky will copyright half of theoretical computer science; and the next car you buy won't have a steering wheel. This frightens me. Followups to comp.misc. ---Dan
ooblick@intercon.com (Mikki Barry) (04/14/90)
In article <4238:Apr1500:57:5390@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >You can't patent a method, whether you invented it or not. You can't >copyright a method. But now, under the proposed copyright law for >Europe, you'll be able to (in effect) copyright methods. There are, in fact, patents on processes. >Patents last at most 17 years. Copyrights can last forever, if they're >assigned suitably; in any case they always last at least 50 years, with >an average of more like 100. Copyrights extend from the life of the author plus 50 years. If the copyright is owned by a corporation, it lasts 75 years. Assignment only grants rights granted within those time periods. >In other words, the proposed European copyright law is an obscene >strengthening of what may already be overly strong protections. On the other hand, another proposed European scheme would make copying and distributing software (read pirating) absolutely ok, as long as the original copy was purchased legally. From this mess it may be possible to surmise that the Europeans don't have it quite together when deciding on how they will deal with intellectual property. Mikki Barry
brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (04/15/90)
In article <1990Apr14.042027.18553@intercon.com> ooblick@intercon.com (Mikki Barry) writes: > In article <4238:Apr1500:57:5390@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > >You can't patent a method, whether you invented it or not. > There are, in fact, patents on processes. None of which have (to my knowledge) been tested in court. As patent law explicitly forbids patents on methods, I'm quite sure that algorithm patents will die as soon as they're challenged. [ copyrights ] Through some loopholes in copyright law, a copyright can be preserved for as long as there are people around to keep it going. Anyway, the minimum copyright duration of 50 years is way too long for protecting ``innovation,'' though it's perfectly appropriate for protecting the form of a work. > >In other words, the proposed European copyright law is an obscene > >strengthening of what may already be overly strong protections. > On the other hand, another proposed European scheme would make copying > and distributing software (read pirating) absolutely ok, as long as the > original copy was purchased legally. From this mess it may be possible > to surmise that the Europeans don't have it quite together when deciding > on how they will deal with intellectual property. Yeah. What's wrong with the Berne Convention, I wonder? ---Dan
brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (04/15/90)
In article <2148@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> edit@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Film/Video) writes: > brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > "For thousands of years ideas have been free." > That may be so, but for hundreds of years inventions have been > ---------- > patentable. > ---------- You can't patent a method, whether you invented it or not. You can't copyright a method. But now, under the proposed copyright law for Europe, you'll be able to (in effect) copyright methods. Patents last at most 17 years. Copyrights can last forever, if they're assigned suitably; in any case they always last at least 50 years, with an average of more like 100. In other words, the proposed European copyright law is an obscene strengthening of what may already be overly strong protections. ---Dan
brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (04/15/90)
In article <23717.26243e7e@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes: > In article <2536:Apr1302:34:2890@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu writes: > > In article <1NT2K:Exds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > [ in reference to the European Community's proposed Copyright Directive ] > > > The ability to copyright program interfaces to packages takes the already > > > dubious "look-n-feel" copyrights to a new and absurd height. > > That's an understatement. > > For thousands of years ideas have been free. Now AT&T will be able to [ I proceed to theorize about the effects of Europe's proposed law ] > > This frightens me. > Just in case you haven't heard (How could you NOT hear?)--- [ Chad proceeds to let me know what really happened ] > Try to keep up on your news reading, OK? I'm aware of the Apple and Xerox decisions, the lack of a copyright on the UNIX interface, and the presence of steering wheels on new cars. I was pointing out how all those reasonable events would go haywire if something like the proposed European Copyright Directive were around. Try to observe the tone of articles you read, OK? ---Dan