dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (08/11/89)
In article <661@laic.UUCP>, darin@nova (Darin Johnson) writes: >In article <TALVOLA.89Aug9115451@janus.berkeley.edu> talvola@janus.berkeley.edu (Erik Talvola) writes: >>I don't believe this is really an accurate analogy, and I would like >>to supply one which I feel is closer to the situation. >> : >But blah blah blah... How many more analogies will be posited, debated, and refined before we come to grips with the real problem? Analogies are sometimes useful for explaining unfamiliar concepts in terms of the familiar. But by their very nature there exists a point at which each analogy will break down. The *real* problem is that we don't have a good system of software publishing; i.e., one that protects the author's "intellectual property" and the publisher's profits without stifling creativity or burdening the consumer.
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (08/12/89)
From article <73@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>, by dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill): " " The *real* problem is that we don't have a good system of software " publishing; i.e., one that protects the author's "intellectual " property" and the publisher's profits without stifling creativity or " burdening the consumer. We used to have a good system, before the copyright law was changed to protect binaries. We ought to go back and require that only human readable forms of programs can be protected by copyright directly, and that binaries can be protected under copyright only as derivative works from published sources. Copyright should serve as an incentive for making information public, as it has historically, not provide a reward for keeping it secret. (And referring to a firm that deals in proprietary binaries as a "publisher" is a perversion of the term.) Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (08/14/89)
In article <4547@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: }From article <73@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>, by dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill): }" }" The *real* problem is that we don't have a good system of software }" publishing; i.e., one that protects the author's "intellectual }" property" and the publisher's profits without stifling creativity or }" burdening the consumer. } }We used to have a good system, before the copyright law was changed to }protect binaries. We ought to go back and require that only human }readable forms of programs can be protected by copyright directly, and }that binaries can be protected under copyright only as derivative works }from published sources. Copyright should serve as an incentive for }making information public, as it has historically, not provide a reward }for keeping it secret. (And referring to a firm that deals in }proprietary binaries as a "publisher" is a perversion of the term.) I'm not sure I agree. The question, as Dave sums up, is what you want to protect and what you want to allow. A key question to me is whether we are best served by copyright-like or patent-like protections [This is assuming that you basically agree with the two of them in their normal venues... I don't want to get into a debate on whether patents and/or copyrights are worthless *period*...]. The more I ponder computer systems, what they do, what are the key characteristics of *good* ones, and the things you have to do to actually MAKE a good one and get it to work, the more well-done computer programs and innovative computer applications and techniques look like *devices* than they do articles (or songs). Why is an innotative storage management technique, or a breakthrough application, any different-in-kind than discovering a new shape for the slot on a screw-head or devising a neat new mechanical-widget. In most of these fields (as in computers), the really hard part is knowing what is possible and worthwhile and what works. Once you SEE what it is that is worth doing, be you a machinist, chemist, or computer programmer, it is generally not hard to reproduce it... but it is still someone ELSEs idea... And so, as I say: if *I* got to tweak the laws about software, I would probably NOT make them be copyright-like, but rather I would try to figure out how to make them more patent-like. __ / ) Bernie Cosell /--< _ __ __ o _ BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238 /___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_ cosell@bbn.com
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (08/15/89)
From article <44223@bbn.COM>, by cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell): >... And so, as I say: if *I* got to tweak >the laws about software, I would probably NOT make them be >copyright-like, but rather I would try to figure out how to make them >more patent-like. Patent protection seems more appropriate for many aspects of software systems, as you say. But why make a special case in the law for software? I suggested, as others have, that software should be judged to have or not have copyright protection on the same basis as other works of art or science. Let it be the same for patents, or contracts, or trade secrets -- whatever. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu