Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuit Filed Against Software Copyright
mdielmann writes "CNet has a story about a lawsuit asking for copyright protection to be removed from software, while leaving patent protection in place. 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. It looks like this would hamstring licenses such as the GPL, which are often based on copyright privileges, while leaving OSS vulnerable to patent infringement. Apparently, he's been working on this for the last three years."
... their newest consultant.
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!
Regardless of hwo this might play out, and its implications, I can't see this being retroactive to software that already exists... that certainly would be pulling the rug out from underneath alot of companies feet.
I cant see MS not spending a grip to make this go their way either.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
This was to be expected. TPTB must have control. You as consumers are only here to be exploited in the minds of the TPTB.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
The Supreme Court of the United States indicated in its Eldred v. Ashcroft opinion that the Court isn't in the mood to to legislate from the bench, that it's Congress's job to sort out the scope of copyright law so long as there's a semblance of a right of fair use preserved to the people.
Now it'll only take a day to get the latest releases instead of the normal two-week delay while the crack groupz do their thing!
This might actually help the GPL (and the patient system) by allowing for "prior art". Especially if they did away with the lifetime copyrights and start actually release things into the public domain.
Seems to me this would be a "good thing" (TM)
-Wes
It's just unfortunate it's not compatible with the way open-source software developers have been doing business for the past thirty years...
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Who is he sueing? It doesn't mention. It should be the other way around. Copyrights should be allowed, software patents should not. Software patents are what causes most of the trouble.
Since when have patents been difficult to obtain?
First of all, every major software company including Microsoft will be against this idea, and the BSA with its powerful lobby, is against this idea. This would make it much more difficult for them to protect their software. Patents are just the icing on the cake for software companies. They are much more difficult to get. Copyright has always been a given.
The idea that software could not be copyrighted but books, music, etc. could is hypocritical. Copyright would have to be removed from all those forms of media to be consistent with software not being copyrightable.
It'll never happen.
I think he brings up some good points but I think the bloat and draconian nature of the copyright system would simply move to the patent system. The problems that exist and persist in the software copyright arena are ones that give the advantage to those who can affect how patent law and copyright language/law will be.
I don't think he doesn't have a point, I think he's done a wonderful job of exploring moving the system to the patent side but I believe all bottlenecks and corruption will be moved from one office to another.
-Teiresias
Doing the exact opposite would be sane. This isn't.
I don't see a problem with software patents, except that the patents can't be overly simply, or overly broad.
""CNet has a story about a lawsuit asking for copyright protection to be removed from software, while leaving patent protection in place. 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. It looks like this would hamstring licenses such as the GPL, which are often based on copyright privileges, while leaving OSS vulnerable to patent infringement."
Well I guess we have our answer to the question "What would happen if copyright-haters ruled the world?".
Not any better than if the patent-haters ruled the world.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
A software is a product, and it employs some sort of algorithm or algorithms. So let's say I use an algorithm that some other company developed. Do I have to pay them?
And yes, Open Source will have a problem. A corporation could easily say "Hey the Open Source implementation that you have of XYZ infringes on my patent on the commercial version".
IMHO, I don't think patents will work for software (at least in this form). It's simply too abstract, and too widespread. Writing a poem and writing an algorithm are two different things. The poet can get money for having his poem published in books. But let's say you come up with a rather innovative and efficient algorithm for doing task X, and you work for a company Y, then Y owns the patent on it. So anyone who wants to use it will have to pay money. But what if you came up with another algorithm that does the same thing? Could they sue? What if you're a small company Z that came up with said algorithm? The big guy could take you out...
IANAL, but our laws for software are probably not mature (and well thought out) enough to deal with this... yet.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
Excuse me? Is it the author or the editor who's claiming that patents are difficult to obtain? Haven't we been seeing patents being awarded left and right for the most mundane industry processes? Difficult to obtain, indeed.
It's not really up to the court to judge whether software is "protected enough already"... even the supreme court really can't do that. The constitution gives congress fairly open ended powers to promote science and engineering, and the supreme court has been very reluctatant to put an explicit limit on them.
He's making a due process challenge to this, basically saying that the laws are too vague.
We might not want to dismiss him out of hand as a corporate shill, he does seem to want to get the ambiguity out of the way copyrights are applied to software.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Despite initial knee-jerk reactions, I think there is actually some meat in this story. I feel this will generate discussion worthy of the main page. This quote on the limititaions of copyright got my interest: "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.
He seems to argue that the patent system, as flawed as it is, has rules that require more complete explaination of what is covered, and has rules covering prior art than the more arbitrary legal tyranny he sees in copyright.
Think about it: Copyright goes away, pirated software becomes legal.
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
I'm not so sure Microsoft would favor this concept much. In the end, the core of their business is based on the sale of software, not it's servicing. A patent-based software system would making it very difficult for other publishers to borrow ideas, but would offer zero protection against consumers, who, in the absence of copyright protections, are able to obtain and run the software by any means they see fit. Even registration systems are easily circumvented.
True, MS could go the route of simply giving out the software and charging heavily for support, but that does not suit their business model at all. They rely on sales... sales and upgrades. Their patent concerns are primarily to protect their sales, as is their anti-piracy obsession.
Take away copyright in lieu of strong patents, and they stand to lose more than they have to gain. It's the sort of thing that could break them completely, while providing an advantae for the competition.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
copyrights for software have always seemed like copyrighting a hammer to me. Not that this will actually happen, but if we wanted to actually be logical about it, copyrights have no place in software.
The source code, Maybe. And of course, for this to all make sense, no protection will be given to anyone without full disclosure of all source code.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
1: Arguee that patents are good enough and they can take the palce of copyright.
2: Get told, stop being so fucking stupid, we need copyrights patents are just, well, what do they do that copyrights don't do.
3: Use the counter argument that patents are pointless to get patents removed from software.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Wouldn't it be fairly easy to demonstrate that this would cause devastating harm to the economy? Sure, Microsoft and any other proprietary software house with a fat patent portfolio would be fine with this, but we as consumers would end up with one operating system, one office suite, one game manufacturer, etc. I anticipate this being thrown out, but I suppose I should never underestimate the power of greed.
What ever happened to innovation and competition based on superior products?
I . . . I mean a person who copied a game and gave it to his friends would not be breaking the law, right?
Think about it...
If all patented software was required to be opensourced (the trade off for the patent protection is you have to give the code to OSS when your patent expires) in order to be patented, then OSS would exist because of patents, not be threatened by them. And the requirement has to be a WORKING example of code and not a vauge description that covers all sorts of technology. Then there is a public register that displays the code so disputes can be ironed out and keep everyone honest. At the end of the protection time (and that can't be 20 years, that's way to long for software, more like 3-5 years), the software becomes public domain or BSD style license. And you could even combine this with code auditing and improvements if the patent holder wished it.
As the poster above points out, the constitution clearly gives congress huge leeway in deciding how to "protect writings and discoveries".
So any court would probably say "this is not our bailiwick". He should lobby congress if he wants this kind of change.
Actually, he should go somewhere far away from the united states, I don't like him. His idea is stupid.
It's stupid because with copyrights, I know that I won't infringe anything as long as I write it myself. With patents, I have no idea if anything infringes or not. It's "action at a distance". So I'll probably just not write anything. (But Microsoft won't have any problem since they've got a lot of money). It just creates a barrier to entry. All those "dormant" patents (like the patent on Bayesian spam filtering, or overseas e-commerce, or wifi registration, lets say) well suddenly come to life.
No sir, I don't like it.
No software copyright?
Is the argument that software is a machine and that it shouldn't be illegal to clone a machine whose design isn't patented?
That's a fine idea by me, but the patent office is dangerously inept at dealing with software.
How many real software innovations have there been? I can only think of some compression algorithms and ciphers that are worth patenting, and even then they go too far and last way too long.
Invalidating software copyright practically demands patent reform.
It's too bad that this guy isn't trying to convince software people that their stuff would be perfectly safe under copyright law and fighting to get rid of patents on software.
He would have several million geeks and slashdotters behind him if he did.
Shiny. Let's be bad guys.
It seems to me that MS has as much to lose as ith *nix people. If there is no copyright on software then the only way to prevent piracy from becomming legal is the click through agreements, and they seems sort of shakey to me, legally. (IANAL. However, as an example, how do you sell a game to a minor since they can't enter legal agreements?) It seems to me this guy has it backwards. Software Copyright GOOD. Software Patents BAD.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
1) Guy wants publicity for his idiotic service.
2) How would it supposedly work under patents?
How would commercial software work? The BSA dude saying that they couldn't go after pirates was correct. Sure, this would end the GPL, but it would mean that the only protection for any source code is trade secret law.
That's interesting. If this guy is advocating increasing the scope of patents, then this is all fucked up, but otherwise I simply can't imagine the way he wants software to work.
And of course it won't happen, the court will leave this kind of decision to congress.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I thought there was some legal decision in the '60s or '70s where a judge accepted an argument from one of the lawyers that software licenses were valid because the act of executing a program involved copying the software from the supplied disk (or other media) into the CPU for execution. Without this decision, you would still have copyright on software you write, but licenses would not apply in the same way they don't apply to books. I.e. once you buy a book, you can't copy it, but you can otherwise do what you want with that physical copy.
Does anyone know anything about this court case? I can't seem to pull it up in a quick round on Google...
If you say, "now I'll be modded down because of X", I'll happily oblige.
Now, where did I leave that "You too can be a Patent Examiner in just 90 days!" trade school brochure?
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
In the EU we're trying to throw out patent laws for software and keep copyright as the method of protection for software IP.
I have been saying for a very long time that Dual IP protection is bad. Copyright was never meant to be put on stuff protected by a patent and ditto the reverse.
The dual protection kills innovation. Pick one or the other. Having both will make it impossible to develop software and effectively double the legal cost of doing anything.
l8,
AC
Copywrights protect code you've written. Patents prevent everyone from writing code.
God spoke to me.
On the plus side, all those early arcade ROMs would start becoming legal to trade. At least I think they would, if the courts decide that Copyright doesn't cover software. If Congress went and made a law that said the samething, it couldn't be applied retroactively. IANAL, but I have seen every episode of Ally McBeal. Twice.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
As mentioned, patents are more difficult and expensive to obtain than copyrights. This means that the little guy who cannot afford a patent is not going to be allowed any protection at all!
It is time for software developers to donate potential patents to the FSF. If copyright is no longer a defense against one's code being ripped off by commersial competitors. Microsoft must be secretly wishing that this guy wins his case.
Perhaps, also the Gallery of CSS Descramblers could come is useful. Greg Aharonian's filing is taramount to saying that code is not speech, after all.
Wikileaks, no DNS
As a software developer I can see some very negative implications of this. For example some one could patent the idea of creating a an application that is a new way of receiving and sending e-mail messages between applications. Now think of this, this so called application could not even be written but it still is locked down by a patent. Now an developer comes along and thinks of a similar idea that fits under the same patten. He can not write the software at all. Under the current system he would be able to write the system as long as he does not use the same code. With the patten idea he could write this application totally different using his own ideas and still be violating patent infringement.
Linux is like a teepee. It has no windows, no gates, and there's an Apache inside.
The issue at hand is not necessarily the intent to infringe as it is to protect the consumer.
Consider how many programs out there are starting to employ "phone home" technology to confirm that you are a legitimate user. What if the company's network is down? What if your own network is down? What if the company goes out of business? You can no longer authenticate to use software that you legally purchased (or "licensed" as the anal-retentive will be forced to correct). Is that not theft to a degree on the part of the company who took your money for a product that you can no longer use through no fault of your own?
For how long have we had to deal with inserting a CD into the drive to play a game when the disc really should be stored away for safe keeping? Hell, we even had to deal with "key disks" in Commodore 64 heyday!
How many had CD-ROM drives that were not totally compatible with on-disc protection schemes? Add another upgrade cost to the consumer because of a protection that did not need to be there.
And on top of it all if you do anything to circumvent the protection, even with no intent to infringe, you've broken the law just by the very nature of bypassing the copy protection. Absolute insanity reigns.
Copy protection of software does nothing but hurt the consumer no matter how you look at it. The consumer might have to pay a slightly higher cost for royalties to any copy-protection mechanism company. The consumer might not be able to use their software in the future if the company shuts down, depending on the method of protection. The consumer then (technically) breaks the law by attempting to bypass any copy-protection.
What's worse is that the consumer has to deal with all of this even if he plans on never, ever giving it to anyone else! So, copy protection is a benefit to the consumer HOW?
Oh, it's to protect the profitability of the COMPANY? Really? Then what's this alt.binaries.cracks that I've heard about?
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that society grants to creators the privilege of restrictings others' right to copy. In return for them creating, of course. For limited times - and sensible limited times, of course. Things like ten years for software.
But the idea is that something useful enters the public domain afterwards. This isn'tthe case with software. If Windows 95 entered the public domain today, it would be useless. How would anybody go about fixing security holes? Or updating it in any meaningful way? To do that, you need the source code.
As far as I am concerned, in order for a piece of software to qualify for copyright protection, it needs to be shipped with source. Not only source, but source that you can duplicate the exact binary from.
The first objection to that would be "but it lets people copy our code without us knowing!". Free Software has been dealing with this issue for years. You can detect when source is copied illegally.
The second objection would be "but what about our trade secrets?" Really, is there any trade secret of value that can be hidden in source code? Remember that it can't be a particular algorithm, as the algorithm is already being distributed in the binary.
But to give copyright protection in return for something that is not only useless, but useless decades from now is utterly ridiculous. The copyright deal that society makes with creators doesn't work properly unless source code is required and terms shortened.
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.
Uh, jail? In a civil suit? No, but I have a nice bridge he might want to buy.
While I understand that copyright may be extremely convenient for software developers, it really doesn't fit with other sorts of copyrighted works. Books and paintings don't dynamically attach themselves to other books and paintings. They don't talk to other books and paintings over a network. We use software because it does something, not because it expresses some idea. It may do that as well, but then so might a mechanical engineer's latest creation.
I don't really agree with this guy's argument though. The things he is complaining about would be better resolved by declaring EULAs unenforceable once and for all (long overdue) and overturning the DMCA (also long overdue).
Here's something to consider though: The Constitution permits copyright for the "writings" of an "author." A compiled executable really doesn't meet this definition. It is the output of a machine and readable only to a machine. At most, the copyright clause applies to software in human-readable form (i.e. source code). But when compiled, it is no longer expressive, but rather primarily functional. Functional inventions are the realm of patents, not copyrights. Unlike the broken software patent system we have now, a software patent should cover only a specific program, not all possible ways of doing the same thing.
A compromise would be to allow copyright protection to extend to non human-readable software, but make it more patent-like: Require the human readable source code to be made available and shorten the term to 5-10 years, not the ridiculous 95 or life+70 we have now.
Snopes sez: Shiny side in !!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
There are 2 things that immediatly come to mind:
"I'm surrounded by idiots".
to paraphrase 'into each life the rain must fall', "into each court a fool must fall".
Considering software patents as a replacement for copyright is an interesting concept. Not very practical, as we have enough trouble with software patents as it is. The worst possible case is what we have now -- the perpetual tyranny of copyright combined with the "I just patented the alphabet" patent system. Anyone who proposes that we ditch either of these is on the right track, even though they may be heading in the wrong direction. Ultimately, I think that if given the choice, the software industry would choose copyright protection over patent. The trick is making them choose. Presenting copyright vs. patent as mutually exclusive is a good start.
This is one case where I hope the copyright lobby wins.
Actually, Eben Moglen has pointed out the interesting fact that cases (e.g. Eldred vs. Ashcroft) that *strengthen* copyright have actually been good for the GPL and other OSS licenses. I wonder if this has some people nervous.
Copyrights are the right fit for software. Software is a work of "prose" or something very similar to it. You're basically writing prose for a machine. Patents are the wrong fit. This guy is arguing that we abolish the right kind of IP protection for software in favor of the wrong kind. I'd look seriously into this and see if this guy has any connection to the following people:
- Mike Anderer (IP cartel mastermind)
- Microsoft (obvious)
- Waggoner Edstrom (MS's PR/astroturf firm)
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
umm, see, that is the thing. if there is no copyright, and only patent, then all software would be open source. you have to publish the schematics of how it works and that is done in software through publishing the code.
why do you think that software companies do not like this because then all they have is the trade secrets law to protect them which basically means that if you could not protect the secret from being leaked, then you have no protection for its redistribution and use, you only have recourse against the person that leaked it.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
So, if I were to make a video game and I wanted to sell it, under this guy's plan, I would have to patent the game so that no one could pirate it?
Patents and copyrights do completely different things. Patents prevent competitors from cutting in to your market for a short period of time after you invent something. Copyright (it is used this way now anyway) prevents people from pirating your software, and keeps others from uses your trademarks and the like.
Unless I am mistaked (IANAL, so I very well maybe) all that patenting does it prevent others from making something too much like your invetion and selling it. So, they could make something like yours and give it away, and that would be ok.
It's impractical, but here's what I want "in a perfect world:"
The "artistic" elements of a program, including most comments, some variable names, etc. are clearly copyrightable.
"Constrained" items, be they constrained by the algorithm (how many efficient ways there to code a bubble sort?) or by convention (some coding conventions impose constraints) are not deserving of such protection.
As for "new" code, e.g. the first implimentation of a new efficient sorting algorithm:
If there is only a small, limited number of ways to efficiently solve a problem, such as sorting and most other "small" tasks, then copyright protection for the item as a whole is questionable, although the creative elements in individual lines, such as comments and creative variable names, are still copyrightable.
Binaries which contained as few as 1 byte of compiled copyrightable code would be protected from "in toto" copying, but partial copying would be allowed if the resultant part had no copyrightable code. For example, bubblesort.class extracted from commercialjavacode.zip, from bubblesort.c copied out of a book with only whitespace and comment changes would be free to copy.
Code which is not efficient is more likely to have non-algorithmicly-constrained elements or in extreme cases, such as the obscufacted C contest, a work of art in and of itself.
The rub is that whether something is "constrained enough" to forfeit copyright protection is usually a matter of opinion, and I'm not sure I want judges or juries making that decision, nor do I want the uncertainty such a scheme would unleash.
Given that, I'd rather have some "rules we can all live by" even if they didn't match my fairy-tale-world scenario. As is true in much of life, the world is better off with a practical solution than by adopting my personal wish list.
As for patents, well, this guy has a point in theory but the current patent system is almost as messy as my proposed copyright system would be. As such, this person's idea cannot be seriously entertained until the patent mess is cleared up.
The guy does have some good points - copyright law is being abused, and there are uncertainties that need buttoning down.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It's especially difficult to argue that compiled software is an "expression" worthy of copyright, because it's unintelligible to humans. Society doesn't gain the benefit, part of the quid pro quo of copyright, of reading the expression in its original form. It is like a copyright on a physical tool (rather than its design specifications), which as far as I know doesn't exist.
I would be happy with a world in which copyright could only be claimed when source code is provided. Software companies could still impose their restrictive licenses, but at least we would get to learn from the code, borrow good ideas (assuming they're not patented...), find bugs, perform security audits, etc. I think this would make the industry healthier, if somewhat less profitable (because companies couldn't keep their ideas secret--a good thing for society).
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
As a creative work, software is protectable under copyright law.
IT HAS AN AUTHOR.
Does that mean I'm free (as in beer) to copy it, and give it to all my friends?
If that is the case, does that mean the indy software publishers are going to sufer because they can't afford a patent, and you can only have so many patetented technics on genres of games etc...?
This just seems a waste of time and money
Not quite. They wouldn't need to publish anything. They aren't saying the code must be published, only that it isn't copyrightable.
UPS Sucks
Most slashdotters would agree that the current system could use some changes. But, transferring all software over to the already broken patent system is a worst case scenario.
Personally, I think the current copyright system has been manipulated into a terrible state by big businesses. But, a judge is not the guy to redesign the system. It needs to go before Congress to make fundamental changes (which is probably a bad idea right now, as our current government is so hopelessly corporatist that you might as well let Disney make the rules).
Copyright covers so many different types of media. Why is the protection the same for a newspaper article as for a software program, or a movie?
And, there are some things that companies may want to protect for centuries. But, that is just a huge burden on 99% of the other material that it makes no sense for. Give companies the ability to register copyrights, and extend them at a cost that increases as the term goes longer. Let them bear the cost burden of the system they benefit from.
Copyright law says absolutely NOTHING about inappropriate or appropriate use, it only controls copying. What he's talking about are shrinkwrap/clickthrough licenses, which are not defined in copyright law because they're contracts... switching to patent law wouldn't change a thing: the clickthrough licenses would end up being "licenses for use of the patented invention" rather than "licences for the use of the copyrighted product", and we'd be in the same place, except patents are so much broader that patent holders wouldn't need to outcompete their competition: their competitors would have to license their patents just like their customers would.
this would strengthen software patents (which are a bad idea anyway) and do nothing to solve the real problem.
However, no one is associating copyright laws with human rights.
Tell that to Dr. Lessig.
Under that theory, the GPL would keep its teeth but (e.g.) the M$ EULA, which also relies on copyright law, would not. Of course, that won't happen in a million billion jillion years...
Im not going to comment on the liklyhood that this will or will not be succsessful.
If we have to choose one protection for software it would have to be copyright.
Patents basically kill any type of compentition. You could charge whatever you wanted and sue the hell out of anyone who tries to write a competeing product. It basically means that lots of profit for the patent holder and no competition driven innovation or service.
Copyright on the other hand protects a companies specific implementation of an idea. No one else can use that implementation but it doesnt prevent someone from making a compediting product.
If linux didnt exist, Microsoft probably wouldnt be trying to create new innovations for longhorn such as avalon.
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
Well if this is true then there is just one question:
How would a software-company like Microsoft earn any money?
A tax on computers, distributed among software-companies according to "marketshare"?
There are a lot of companies that depend on trade secrets and copyright rather than patents for their softwares' protection -- for example, the the EDA industry). Forcing disclosure would ruin a lot of the "secret sauce" that these companies closely guard.
Trade secrets do have backing in law (this was an aspect in the DVD CCA vs. John Does cases) and if software copyrights go away, there might be a resurgance in trade secret cases (even though programs are released to the public).
I doubt copyright would go away; it looks like Aharonian is just trying to reform it by pointing out how whack it has become (Sonny Bono Copyright extension act, DMCA)
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
The oposite must be done really, keep patents away from software and embrace copyrights.
I am not going to write again why, so many more important people did before me.
There's absolutely no way this is going to go anywhere in the courts. However, what I _would_ like to see happen is for Congress to legislate that all published software must have its source code either published with it or registered with the Library of Congress in order to receive copyright protection.
"Aharonian said in his complaint he does not know whether 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." why would just a listing of programs infringe on copyrights. I list programs all the time in inventory programs at work to keep track of what we got - maybe I am missing something. anyway - he is an ip consultant - the new profession of the 21st century invented by microsoft and sco. we should be getting rid of patents and not copyrights - at least I can understand a copyright when I read it but when you read a patent you still don't know if you infringe or not - it's like you need an IP attorney - oh wait.
An arguement that might work someday soon but won't work today, only because things aren't that bad yet, is that copyright law, as written and currently practiced in the computer-programming industry, does not " promote the progress of science and useful arts ."
One could argue that today's patent system is messed up so badly that in some domains it hinders, rather than promotes, progress of science and useful arts, particulary in the computer-software industry.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The real question is how to inforce using pattened algorithms. Lets say I make the Jellomizer Sort which sorts data in a O(log(N)) Speed on one processor. I Patend it. Then MicroSmush Corporation makes a program that uses the Jellomizer Sort (Say there were being honest and Didn't know that I have pattened it, but they came up with the same algrothim indepentant of my work) And MicroSmush releses the program close source. How will I know what algroitm are they running? I see that it does sort data quickly but thats about it. But if an other group GNUSmush released my algorithm and made it opensource then I could sue GNUSmush. That is the problem with software patents if you are making closed source software (and they are norrmally selling it) they are harder to find the patent then in something made open source. It is not like patents for physical things like say a Part in a car that makes you go faster which you can find by looking under the hood. Software should be forced to follow Copywrite law not Patten Law because of the inability to equally inforce the law.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I think a better idea would be to only allow copyright on source code. For the same reason that we require patents to disclose the new idea, in order for copyright to benefit the public good (as the US Constitution requires) there should be some way for the public to re-create the idea once the copyright term expires. Of course, Congress seems to have forgotten that copyright terms are supposed to expire.
The copyright on software would effectively be the same, because anyone who copied the binary code would have had to copy the source code that generated it. The only difference would be that software vendors would have to disclose the source code in order to be protected.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Tossing out an idea here.
We have the question of software covered by copyright. We have the question of software covered by patent. We have companies using both.
Why assume, however, that copyrights, patents, or a combination of both are appropriate at all to software.
Perhaps, and this is pie-in-the-sky, software needs to be uniquely recognized separate from current ways of registering rights.
Do I have a solution? No. I merely throw this out for discussion.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
This is all wrong. Software being protected by copyright is a legislative issue. Congress has clearly laid down the law on this matter. They have specifically designed copyright regulation on software and source code.
The courts really have no business getting in on something like this. The gentlemen should be only arguing this in front of Congress or perhaps a body designated by Congress to address copyrights.
The courts are around only to handle disputes arising from the conflict of laws, punishment for breaking the laws, ambiguities or unconstititional matters of law, etc. The courts have no business undoing the unambigious constititional statues put forth by Congress.
It's my understanding that before the mid-1990s, the government would only buy a license to your software if the source code was kept in escrow, in case you went out of business.
Back in the '70s and '80s, a lot of small firms went belly-up, leaving anyone who used it with unmaintained code and no way to maintain it themselves.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
As linus pointed out, copyrights are for the small guy. Most people do not have the resource to obtain and defend a patent. However many companies have entire dept that are patent machines. Also it is for everyones benefit that creative people are creating and developing not reading the latest PTO newsletter and understanding the nuances of patent law.
Odd that this shows up as awareness is growing that patents are exactly what software does NOT need. Perhaps the utter failure of this case would help the case to dismantle software patents, but I think this could lead to bad things if taken too seriously.
Thank you for repeating the /. summary.
"It looks like this would hamstring licenses such as the GPL, which are often based on copyright privileges, while leaving OSS vulnerable to patent infringement."
"(even though programs are released to the public)"
Once the source is released to the public, or released at all without a non-disclosure agreement, it's no longer a trade secret.
Trade secrets are also vulnerable to reverse engineering. If I can reverse-engineer the secret formula to Coca Cola, I'm free to publish it, or more likely, keep it a secret and get rich off of it.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Right now, in case nobody has noticed, the European Union is looking at the idea of software patents. If someone were to...
Yeah, yeah, it's spin-doctoring. They're not really saying the patents are bad, they're really saying that patents alone are bad. Spin is the stuff of modern politics, however, and industry has used it enough times against those it doesn't like.
To beat software patents in Europe and (hopefully, eventually) America, we simply show that there are no significant benefits or additional protections offered by patents, according to the software industry itself. It won't influence those set in their ways, but any skeptics who are just along for the ride might be swayed.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Maybe so, but patents are even worse. At least with copyright, there's one set of rules that apply to all cases. With patents, the boundaries are determined by the set of all claims in every patent that exists. That's millions of rules to check against each new line of code I write, with hundreds more being added every single day. What's worse, these claims are written by the very people who benefit from them, and they are often intentionally obfuscated by their authors.
IMHO, copyrights are actually a good match for software *source code*, since it looks and feels a lot like a work of literature. The same isn't so true for object code. Since it is a "weakly encrypted" mechanical transformation of the source, it doesn't provide the customer with any of the benefits of knowledge that copyrights on literature and music were originally intended to promote. However, patents are a particularly poor match for software because of the O(n^2) legal problem of needing to check millions of lines of code against millions of patent claims. (That's a job on the order of 10^12 operations for every large program out there!)
I believe that object code would be better be protected by a totally new IP concept that is tailored specifically for the unique properties of software. Object code would not be eligible for either copyright or patents as they exist today.
It might be something like a standardized EULA that properly balances the interests of the vendor and the customer. (IMO, one-sided vendor-written EULAs should also be disallowed unless they get an actual ink-and-paper signature on a valid contract prior to the sale). Instead of being based on the concept of physical copies like standard copyright, which doesn't map well to networks of computers, it would be based on the actual usage patterns of computer software. The rights of someone to compile some source code they have into object code, or to make copies of object code, would be dictated by this new concept, not by copyright.
I think that the new form of protection would ideally provide some weak protection against blatant ripoffs of look-and-feel and innovative new features, but it should explicitely allow for interoperability. Maybe published APIs and file formats should be required to get any IP protection at all. To combat monopoly-protecting market barriers, any protections under this new concept would also be subject to the stipulation that they can be licensed by anyone under reasonable-and-nondiscriminatory terms.
Of course, don't hold your breath wating for anything like this to happen in the real world.
... because I just can't wait to hop onto Kazaa and get every last game I ever wanted, legally, and free.
... Someone somewhere will have successfully copied that copyrighted/etc piece of software. As mentioned in the article: "Until you're sued and a judge makes up his mind about what is the idea and expression (at stake), no one knows."
Until then, enjoy using your favorite storage medium(s) of choice!
The EU Council is accused of 'last-minute manoeuvring'...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Okay, so let's say there are to be no more copyrights on computer software, and it's just patents instead. So this means that, unless they want everyone making a carbon copy of Doom 3, id Software needs to patent the first person shooter. Well, I hear you say, that's not what they'd patent, they'd patent the nicely rendered, fully shadow-casted, first-person perspective horror game, involving shooting hell beasts on a deserted Martian research station. Hmm, well, that sounds reasonably sound. But that's not how patents are defined, is it? That patent wouldn't cover the specific things which combine to create Doom3, and therefore cover only Doom3. They describe the rendering engine. They describe the use of fully dynamic shadow casting to create atmosphere. They describe a lot of technically seperate things. This ultimately makes it difficult for people to write another horror-atmosphere first-person shooter, because a lot of the ideas which go into it are covered by id Software's patents. This is the crux of the problem: patents cover the ideas (first-person shooter, horror, monsters from hell) not the actual content. If a new 'Undying' game were created, using lots of real-time shadows & suchlike to enhance the atmosphere, it could be clubbed over the head with the Doom3 patents, because it does so many of the same things. However, it's obviously a completely different game. It's like saying that once Hitchcock used the 'Vertigo' camera move (pull camera back & zoom in simultaneously) that no-one else could do that again -- it's protected by patents. The point of using copyrights for software is that what you're protecting is your actual final piece of work. That way, you don't stop other people from attempting to improve upon your product (this is called competition, and it's what induces you to make your own software better over time). You also don't flood the patent office with a hundred *really tightly defined* patents for *slightly differing* products. Hehe... who am I kidding...? If this goes through, MS will file lots of really specific patents to protect the exact internals of their own software? Sure, and when they do I'll make a celebratory dinner for all here, of aerial pork. ..... Actually, that reminds me of something - for patents, don't you have to publish the entire method? So to patent Doom3, id would have to publish pseudocode for the entire piece of software? So, instead of having automatic copyright on my *trade secret* software code, I have to publish the whole lot? And then when some big company nicks it & doesn't admit it I just have to pull out masses of cash to sue them?
Yeh, sign me up for that one right NOW...... :o|
Is that they have to be published, compulsory licencing and challenge in court is an option and educational use is free. Instead of an innovation being locked up inside a company, other people can expand on it and even sell their work back to the original inventor. This could discourage one-click style patents because then the filer can not then argue in court that single-tap on a touch screen is not separately patentable.
Sure big companies (and small "IP" companies) will abuse patents, but they do that already, along with abusing copyrights and contracts (shrink-wrap). The only way for common people to live in a sane world is to constantly push back.
If you guys bothered to look at this guys website, which is named http://www.bustpatents.com/, you'd see that he is really against software patents.
I think what he is trying to do here, is perform a publicity stunt to show that patent laws (in its current messed-up form) actually could COVER copyright laws since copyright laws says others can't distribute your (non-free) software, while patent law says they can't even distribute software that DOES THE SAME THING as your (patented) software.
1) The idea that software is not copyrightable but books/music/etc. are is not novel. In 1980, Bill Gates was arguing that software should be copyrightable, even though bytecode is not in a human-readable form (which was previously a requirement for an artistic work to get copyright), and the law was unclear as to whether bytecode would end up being copyrightable at all.
2) Software is the only thing I know of that can potentially be covered by patent, copyright, and trade secret law. To me, that's insane--and something needs to go.
3) My suggestion:
No more copyright or patent for software. Instead, have something different, which I'll call a "software patent". To obtain protection for a piece of bytecode, you must send the source code for this program to the Copyright Office. You then have several choices:
a) Allow the Copyright Office to release your source code immediately. You then have copyright-like protections on both the source code and bytecode for X number of years (say 10 or 20 years).
b) Do not release the source code immediately. You then get copyright-like protections on both the source code and bytecode for Y number of years (say 2 or 5 years). After your Y years are up, your copyright-like protections expire, your work enters the public domain, and your source code is released by the Copyright Office.
Ideas? Suggestions?
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
Sorry folks.... not expecting HTML format to be on by default (and the preview button isn't on the left since I signed in.... Who's for a game of Spot The Newbie...?)
..... Actually, that reminds me of something - for patents, don't you have to publish the entire method? So to patent Doom3, id would have to publish pseudocode for the entire piece of software? So, instead of having automatic copyright on my *trade secret* software code, I have to publish the whole lot? And then when some big company nicks it & doesn't admit it I just have to pull out masses of cash to sue them?
:o|
This is what it should have looked like:
------------
Okay, so let's say there are to be no more copyrights on computer software, and it's just patents instead.
So this means that, unless they want everyone making a carbon copy of Doom 3, id Software needs to patent the first person shooter.
Well, I hear you say, that's not what they'd patent, they'd patent the nicely rendered, fully shadow-casted, first-person perspective horror game, involving shooting hell beasts on a deserted Martian research station. Hmm, well, that sounds reasonably sound. But that's not how patents are defined, is it? That patent wouldn't cover the specific things which combine to create Doom3, and therefore cover only Doom3. They describe the rendering engine. They describe the use of fully dynamic shadow casting to create atmosphere. They describe a lot of technically seperate things.
This ultimately makes it difficult for people to write another horror-atmosphere first-person shooter, because a lot of the ideas which go into it are covered by id Software's patents. This is the crux of the problem: patents cover the ideas (first-person shooter, horror, monsters from hell) not the actual content. If a new 'Undying' game were created, using lots of real-time shadows & suchlike to enhance the atmosphere, it could be clubbed over the head with the Doom3 patents, because it does so many of the same things. However, it's obviously a completely different game.
It's like saying that once Hitchcock used the 'Vertigo' camera move (pull camera back & zoom in simultaneously) that no-one else could do that again -- it's protected by patents.
The point of using copyrights for software is that what you're protecting is your actual final piece of work. That way, you don't stop other people from attempting to improve upon your product (this is called competition, and it's what induces you to make your own software better over time). You also don't flood the patent office with a hundred *really tightly defined* patents for *slightly differing* products.
Hehe... who am I kidding...? If this goes through, MS will file lots of really specific patents to protect the exact internals of their own software? Sure, and when they do I'll make a celebratory dinner for all here, of 'aerial pork'.
Yeh, sign me up for that one right NOW......
There's thi's thing, called double negative. Perhap's youve heard, of it!
First off, some people are fluent in machine code, which is nothing more than an encoding of binary.
.o file or at least every executable module.
Second, some code is written in machine code or even binary and some of that code is definately deserving of protections. Some build environments may link in such code by default.
You may have a point with the output of a compiler or the portions of an executable file that are nothing more than compiler output. However, those parts of an executable that include pictures, text strings, ADA-style comments, and even assembled handcrafted-assembly code are almost certaintly worthy of copyright protection.
If "pure" compiler output that doesn't include artistic elements is ever ruled non-protectable, you can bet your bottom dollar that the big boys will make sure that "protectable" elements wind up in every
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Yes, I have always thought of Greg Ahronyan as an opponent of software patents..
But if he wanted to show the brokenness of software patent system, would not it be better to sue to abolish PATENT protection, rather than copyright protection??
So, any other theories?
Why oh why is this so difficult?
I don't see the GPL as a copyright enforcer. I see the GPL mostly thumbing its nose at copyright. For the most part, as I read it, the GPL recognizes that everyone has the natural potential to make a copy of something and simply asks that if a person makes a modification that they share it both upstream and downstream. BSD recognizes that everyone has the natural potential to make a copy and makes no recommendations about sharing any changes.
I don't think that this sort of suggestion would hurt GPL but would only nudge GPL legally into the BSD realm. Those of us who are considerate would adhere to the GPL willingly and those corporate raiders who like to pirate code would still be reviled.
As for the official legal mumbo jumbo... We all know it's a load of hash anyways. It's just there to draw lines for the corporations to give the legal business its tithe.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
There's a key difference between a movie-DVD and computer-software:
The audio-visual information encoded on a DVD is just that - encoded. The decoded form is human-readable. In this way, it's much like a computer disk full of jpegs or text files. Copyright law clearly covers reversable translations and encodings.
Compiling a computer program is rarely reversable. Most compilers strip out comments and local variable names, for example. As such, a computer program, even if disassembled or decompiled, is not only different from the original, but it is for the most part not easily human-readable. Sure, it is a derivative work, but you could argue it's been stripped of some or all of its copyrightable components. Not true of a movie-DVD, not true at all.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Patents on algorithms only came about by the USPTO and lower courts thumbing their nose at the clear precedent of the US Supreme Court. There is no such thing as a fairly patented algorithm until such time as the EU legalizes them.
It's not the unintelligibility of it, it's the fact that you can't "undo" a compile in most environments. Worse, the compiled version has lost a lot of the very things that made it protectable in the first place, such as comments and local variable names. Even some stylistic elements get optimized away.
Remember, an encrypted version of a copyrighted work is just as protected as an unencrypted one, yet it is unintelligible until unencrypted.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The statement "until you're sued and a judge makes up his mind about what is the idea and expression (at stake), no one knows" applies equally well to patent law.
Just because a patent is granted it doesn't mean the patent will hold up in court.
It still comes down to a judges interpretation.
How exactly he thinks a system where patents are granted essentially on an ex parte basis by a patent office which lacks the technical and scientific knowledge to identify truly novel and non-trivial inventions constitutes DUE PROCESS is beyond me.
Even worse... patent monopolies prohibit items which were NEVER copied, but are genuine inventions. (unfortunately for them, but without any moral blaimworthyness, invented independantly and patented by another).
Under patent law, you can invent something completely indepentantly and still be liable for patent infringement. The fact that you invented it yourself and independantly is irrelevant.
At least with copyright, if you create something novel yourself it is almost statistically impossible that it will be exactly the same as someone elses copywritten material (or so materially similar as to be considered a copy).
Patent law seems to put a burden on inventers to waste their time doing patent searches instead of being creative and inventing things (lest they accidentally make a duplicate invention).
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Was this just a troll to bug those of us who are spelling fanatics?
:)
I know *I* was twitching just *attempting* to read this.
Here goes: Enforcement, patent, patented, independent, algorithm, Copyright, enforce
(I'll leave the grammar issues to someone else... hehe)
P.S. I KNOW... you're probably not a native English speaker. Please realize that I'm just kidding around!
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
If you assume for a minute that patents are TRULY unique and must satisfy a fairly rigorous set of criteria to be granted this does begin to make sense. It is true at entity A could sue and entity B for violating its patent rights but that presupposes that the patent was truly unique. In the case of Operating Systems and the like, it would open the door to a whole new world of competition.
If protection rights were much more difficult to obtain, then the market for many types of software technology begins to open up. Sure it screws a couple of players here and there, but it opens up the industry to a MUCH larger group of players. In the end, I think this is probably a good for innovation and good for the market. Even Open Source projects could benefit by coming up with truly unique and patentable technology that would be afforded much greater protection than is possible with copyrights.
On the other hand, what's to prevent me from taking MS's Windows code, compiling it, sticking my own label one it and selling it as my own? Assuming they have no patented technologies (absurd, I know) in the code this would potentially be perfectly legitimate.
In the end, I think there is some sort of third option which marries the uniqueness and utility tests of patents with the strict "written" aspects of copyrights. Perhaps some sort of fuzzy match for copyrights makes sense. While you would be prohibited from redistributing existing code, code that is somewhat removed yet accomplishes the same tasks would be ok.
Clearly there is no easy solution, but anything that pushes innovation and opens up markets is worth considering.
the patent system is broken, retarded, unfair, abused, and very very expensive.
he's talking about only wealthy people and businesses being allowed rights.
I hope this guy dies very soon and in the most painful way imaginable.
In other words, it's perfectly fine to write, compile, link, and run software that uses algorithms covered by other people's patents. It's only the running of the program for commercial advantage which is protected.
The GPL was designed to protect 4 freedoms. The freedom to:
0 - execute
1 - study
2 - share
3 - fork
The source code is needed for freedom 1 and 3.
Abolishing software copyright, when combined with mandatory source publishing would give the users of all software these freedoms, making the GPL unnecessary. So, if this is the way the wind is blowing, the GPL shouldn't get in its way.
Personally, I would prefer not to resort to a legislated solution. I prefer to give FS the change to beat proprietary software on its own, proving that its a more efficient method. But thats just my opinion.
I'd LOVE to have free-as-in-beer licenses to Windows 95. As it is, it's $10-$20 on e-Bay these days. I do work with an organization that gives computers to kids. These kids can't afford dialup, so a firewall isn't a problem. The schools have antivirus programs so home/school transmission is less of a risk than it might be.
They need a word processor, a paint program, and some games to keep them entertained. They need a floppy disk so they can take their work too and from school.
PS: I'm lobbying for Linux.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Well, your EXACT scenario isn't but the general one is.
If I'm greedy and come up with a truly novel way of sending and receiving email messages, I'll file for a patent, and our brain-dead patent office will surely grant it. Heck, if it's truly novel, it probably deserves a patent even under a sane patent regime.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Congress is entirely capable of abolishing copyright thoroughly within the US.
"Within the U.S." But can Congress easily back out of the Berne Convention, which requires member nations to recognize each other's copyrights for at least life plus 50 years, without severe WTO sanctions?
Speaking in a US-centric manner: And here is an even more important one. Assuming, for a moment, that a small player does manage to obtain a patent, the small player cannot afford to defend this patent in court. Or a copyright. A large company has the deep pockets required to tie up a small company long enough to bankrupt them in the pursuit of what should, on the face of it, be a clear and simple pursuit.
This is not because the patent system is broken (though it is), and it is not because copyrights are broken (though they are) and it is not because corporations are misbehaving (though they are) -- it is simply because the legal system in the US is broken. Money is the fulcrum upon which all these legal levers develop their power; and corporations always hold the longer end of the lever.
The reason for this, in turn, is because US law is broken. In the end, the finger has to point towards the legislature for (a) enacting incredibly stupid law and (b) not getting rid of law when it is bad, but instead enacting new (almost always worse) law that cannot be dealt with in court in a reasonable, timely and inexpensive manner. To put a fine point on it, if laws were well written, you wouldn't need lawyers.
The law says you can't do this. Did you do it? Yes? Guilty. Smack!
To pursue the leverage analogy, the fulcrum needs to be moved to the middle, where a shallow-pockets player has an equal amount of leverage to that which may be obtained by a deep-pockets player. Until, or unless, that is done, large players will have the decisive advantage. There is no way around it.
If, for instance, the fellow who is the subject of this article had any chance of success (he doesn't), every corporation that has a stake in intellectual property protection through copyright would be on him in a heartbeat, and that would be the end of him. Of course, since he has no chance whatsoever, they're ignoring him.
If he were to succeed for some random reason (the judge was a user of hallucinogens, for instance) then the corporations would simply buy congress, pass new law, end of problem. That's the way it works. You have money, you control your situation. You have "rights", they get adjusted by those with money so that the benefits accrue to them, not to you.
You want protection for software so you can sell it? Here is the key: Trade secret. That's the ticket. Innovate, implement, sell, provide outstanding customer service. Maintain absolute secrecy. Force competitors to re-invent. Be clever about it so that if your code is stolen, it will cause major technical problems. While selling, begin to innovate again. Lather, rinse, repeat. By the time your competitors have figured out your last innovation, you're selling a new one.
Copyrights and patents are for the big guys. Oh, a small guy can claim copyright, and they should simply because it is free, but it truly doesn't matter since they cannot defend it.
Trade secret. That is the secret. Of course, if you cannot continually innovate, then you don't get to play long-term. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.
We now return you to your regular reaming by the system. Please assume the position.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Assuming computer code needs protection, I would much rather see it copyrighted than patented. A patent would prohibit or at least complicate the reuse of an algorithm whereas copyright simply applies to the particular implementation. A patent would be like prohibiting all "How To" books on a subject instead of simply unauthorized copying of the text an author used to express an idea.
Of course, this begs the question of whether computer code needs protection at all? In my opinion, source code should receive the same protections as any other procedure manual. And so should any code compiled from that source code, since the compiled code is simply the source code translated into a different format, media, or language.
IP law recognizes that it would be stupid for inventors, authors, and other creators to work in a vacuum. If innovations could only be protected by being kept as trade secrets, all creators would need to start from scratch. This is not the way things work, not if you want to allow progress. Progress depends on creators building on the work of those who came before them. If source code was copyrighted, by law it would be available to other authors and could be cited in their work.
So IP law creates a limited monopoly. In exchange for publicizing their work, which benefits everyone even the creator, creators are allowed to profit from it. If creators would rather keep their work to themselves inspite of it being of use to others, then the monopoly needs to become more profitable. But additional use of creative work adds value to the original work. Society, original creators, and creators who build on an existing idea should all benefit. IP law exists to provide a means for all interested parties to negotiate fair use and fair compensation.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Assume copyrights have been extinguished in favor of patent protection. Id puts out Doom 4. Everyone likes it, but many many terrorists don't want to pay $55 for it. Since copyrights no longer exist, many terrorists copy the game freely and Id goes under. Let's flip it and look at it from the patent side.
Assume copyrights have been extinguished in favor of patent protection. Bungie patents their way of drawing models. It's a broad claim, and just about anyone could be construed to infringe.
Scenraio A) Id releases Doom 4. Everyone likes it. Everyone likes it so much, Halo 2 sales on the PC dry up. Bungie sues Id and Id goes under.
Scenario B) Id can't move forward out of fear of infringing Bungie's patents, can't release any Doom games unless they use Doom 3 technology, and they go under.
Now the scernarios are not mutually exclusive, that's true. But relying on one protection scheme for software doesn't make sense, ESPECIALLY given copyrights and patents protect different things. Patent protection does nothing to stop people from making copies of the games, while copyright does not protect you from gaining protection on some truly inventive aspect. If anything, the bar for software patents should be higher, and people that copy games should be liable. I don't buy the argument that little johnny can't scrape up $50 to buy a video game so he should download it. Wrong. Little johnny should go outside and invent some fun if he can't afford the price set by Id.
I'm GeorgeWBorscht, and I approved this message.
Who would be the defendent in this lawsuit? What damages could the plaintiff be claiming?
I think this lawsuit is going in the right direction, but is the wrong implementation. Software should be copyrighted, and I don't believe that any patent rights should exist. However, software should have a special "technology" copyright applied to it that last a shorter period of time, say ten years. That would mean that people could view source code and learn from things that were developed ten years ago, but companies could still be protected from software piracy. I know ten years doesn't seem like very much, but pull out your old software disk from ten years ago. The software released in 1995 is pretty much useless today, but we can still learn things from it to help us improve on products today. As far as patents go, as it's been said, their too abstract. Because they protect an idea, not an implementation their dangerous in the software industry. Under patents, KDE, Gnome and the like could easily be in violation since M$ created the first "windowing" operating system, which is what all of these programs are. We would have to come up with a completly new way of presenting the OS. With copyright, I can produce a new "windowing" OS but implement it differently than M$ and I'm safe. What about GZip, if I'm not mistaken, PKZip was the first zipping program. Can't compress files if there is a patent on the idea of doing that. How about your web browser, "A program that graphically displays information downloaded from a server via a local or wide area network connection", there goes all but the first to do that (I think it was Netscape). The point is, patents are far more dangerous to the software industry than copyright ever will be. The only thing that needs to be done to copyrights is 1)shorten their length when it comes to software, and 2)loosen the "fair use" restrictions when it comes to software, that is to say, make the copyright apply to the application as a whole, and not to every function in the code.
The goal of the Free Software Foundation, the GNU project, and Richard Stallman, are not to have a strong enforcable GPL, they're to be free to use, screw around with, and redistribute software. The GPL is a means to that end, a way to use current copyright law to enable them/us to do that with some software.
The GPL's goals being achieved pretty much universally would make it obsolete, yes.
As for patents, those already exist, and are already a problem. The GPL is pretty toothless in terms of patents (operating, as it does, in copyright space). Patents simply could not begin to replace copyrights for software - the restrictions on them (duration, originality, non-obviousness, cost) are too strict for them to be as ubiquitous a protection as copyright currently is.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
The MS EULA does not rely on copyright law. It restrains you from doing things that copyright law doesn't prohibit.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
The problem is not the copyrights. Copyrights don't do anything to control how you use software, they just provide a handle for the publisher to impose a license on you.
When you "buy" a program, you don't buy a copy that you can use under normal copyright terms, you buy a license to use the software.
If software was patented, they would come up with a similar scheme to impose similar licenses on you using patents instead of copyrights. It might even be easier for them to impose draconic restrictions for most users.
This is a consequence of the uniqueness of software. Both patent and copyright apply to software. Running a program is similar to watching a movie. There is art, presentation, story, etc. But because programs are interactive, there is also process. The presentation is copyrightable, the process is patentable.
Firstly, genious is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. Copyright protects the 99% perspiration.
Secondly, even by the extremely lax standards set by the US Patent Office, very few software programs contain patentable inventions.
As poetic works of art how can copyright be denied to "source code"?
I think most of the /. crowd would agree that good code is easily the equivalent of poetry.
Most laypersons might even mistake "source code" for the works of e.e. cummings
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.
Unfortunately, the conception that patents protect ideas is a big problem. Patents do not cover ideas, and were never meant to covered ideas. For example you can't patent the ability to process cotton, however, you could patent a machine that processed cotton in a specific way (example: cotton gin) However, when patents are applied to software, they essentially cover an idea. This is why software patents are broken.
Well, that's kind of true. However, for a patent you do have to provide some quite detailed information on the implementation of the 'invention' - that's the whole point of the patent; you tell other people how to implement it.
That doesn't have to be source code, no, but if copyright were to be removed from the equation, then in order to promote competition each software patent would have to be very precise in its description. Otherwise we'd find ourselves with only one available mail client and only one available web browser, for example.
Notwithstanding the code/pseudocode/circuit-diagram 'representation' issue, the thing that is being patented must be described in full. I've been named on a software patent (still waiting to be issued, at six years and counting...) and there was no real code supplied in that - but there were circuit diagrams and pseudocode aplenty, enough that someone code re-implement the invention themselves, but not enough that they would have to infringe the copyright on our C/C++ implementation in doing so.
That's crazy talk!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re your sig, Neal Stephenson's book "Snow Crash" is a good, gentle introduction to the issue of the connection between religion and the occasional human propensity to hear voices.
Remember CherryOS? Remember NOUMEROUS /. stories on various Wine rip-offs??? Various p2p packages folded into commercial spyware??? Have you been asleep for a few years?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Can you patent a song? Let people make lots of copies of your writings? NO: Remove patents from software, and only keep copy right protections. I don't want you to copy my programs and sell them as your own. I don't think 'ONE CLICK' is a novel anything that should be protected for a second. He wants to protect the ideas, but not the product of those ideas. Yeeaaaaahhhh...
Patents are supposed to cover actual working implementations of novel inventions. They're not supposed to include mathematical formulas, nebulous "business methods," "one click shopping" and so on.
Patents cover, for instance, a novel implementation of a mousetrap, but, not all things that trap mice.
In exchange for the exclusive right to develop and manufacture your mousetrap, you also agree to make the details and specification of your invention public, to enrich the public good and to encourage others to build on what you've created.
Once the period of your patent is up, anybody with the wits can look up your patent and build his own copy of your mousetrap. Even while the patent is in force, he can take your idea, improve upon the design, and make his own, different -- maybe better -- mousetrap.
So how does this apply to software?
The implementation of software is its source code. Conveniently source code is also the best specification of software -- it's a functional description of the underlying invention, from which the invention itself is derived.
So if the patent can only cover implementation, it should only cover exact replicas of some source code. Just like my mousetrap -- which only covers the exact mousetrap for which I've submitted blueprints and specifications -- the patent on my software only covers my implementation: not my implementation translated from C into Lisp, or my implementation changed or improved upon so that it functions differently, nor someone else's software that does the exact same thing but written from scratch and whose source is utterly unrelated.
Now, not only is the patent limited to the original working source -- in contrast with the "1 Click" patent for instance -- but since the source is the thing under patent, it is obviously publically available.
All (patented) software becomes free software.
Contrast that scenario with the present regime of software copyright. The GPL goes a long way to turn copyright against itself and secure free software rights for users, but, wouldn't it be better if those rights were universal to all software?
If patents are done right, it balances the rights of developers against the public good much more carefully, co-operatively, and thoughtfully.
Patents are universally loathed at places like Slashdot because the patent office is abused with nonsense patents. Cure that, and, software patents start to look quite attractive.
Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
Without a copyright, doesn't that mean that you can make unlimited copies of commercial software as long as you don't sell it?
I suppose that somewhere along the line, someone would have to remove the EULA, which would put that single person in violation of the contract, but those who never agreed to the EULA would be in the clear.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Having just gotten out of my IP exam....
(1) Patents are a lot more expensive and time-consuming. Copyright is free.
(2) Copyright protects expression, (loosely defined -- computer programs have a lot of expression), patents protect inventions. Most computer programs do not have the necessary novelty and/or non-obviousness to be considered inventions.
(3) The Supreme Court has already had a chance to decide that copyright does not extend to software, but declined to do so. See Computer Associates v. Altai.
(4) The shift would effectively put all current software completely out of IP protection -- if you put your invention out for public use and don't file for a patent w/in one year, you're out of luck. Most software is > 1 year old, so this would mean no copyright, no patent.
If there's a change to be made here, it will have to be Congress doing it, not the courts.
this piece of code:
int main()
{
bool ipLawIsBroken = true;
while ( ipLawIsBroken )
{
ipLawIsBroken = (legislate() && sue());
}
}
be any less copyrightable than this:
Intellectual property laws are broken. We need congress to fundamentally repair it. However, even after congress has passed new laws that address some of it's current problems we will still need some cases to come to court to clarify it.
So basically, if I RTFA correctly, if a computer can read and make sense out of something it becomes uncopyrightable. So let's get philosophical and go to the code is data, data is code, bag of tricks and pull one out. Isn't an MP3 file a program that a MP3 interpreter can read and make sense out of. Does this make it software and thus uncopyrightable?
He has acquired copies of hundreds/thousands of pieces of software, is using them for commercial gain, and doesn't want to pay for them for some reason that simply escapes me.
He needs to either negotiate with the software authors/publishers to get 'special dispensation' to use their copyrighted works in his specific application free-of-charge, or he needs to purchase the software outright.
Every creative work is subject to copyright - there really isn't that much of a grey area here.
People like SCO have recently confused the issues by outright lying and fraudulently representing their interest in software products, however this is a problem with 'due process', not with copyright.
What he really needs to be suing for is a clear definition of what 'Fair Use' is, and if his application falls outside that definition, then tough cookies, he's breaking the law and is liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in dmages or jailtime, just like every other mom, pop and grandma with a pirated copy of Windows and Office on their machine.
Perhaps he should also be suing for higher evidentiary standards in copyright cases - certainly the abolition of copyright for computer software is totally inappropriate and would disenfranchise the vast majority of software rightsholders (including GPL and other Free/Open licensors)
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
Object code is not human readable, therefore it is better thought of as a device than as a form of expression, therefore, prima facie, it should not be copyrightable (IMHO, IANAL, SMC, HAND).
Mechanical translations of a copyrighted work are copyrightable and should be. Suppose that I take any copyrighted digitized work and encrypt it. It is a mechanical translation that is no longer meaningful to humans and therefore loses its copyright. Now I unencrypt it and I have a perfect uncopyrighted copy of what I started with and I can do anything I want with it. Brilliant.
Patents provide a monopoly much moreso than copyright. Investors love monopolies because they're so predictable. Investment gets awfully messy and complicated once competition enters the game. The free market is the enemy of the investor, and software patents help keep the free market at bay.
Greg Aharonian is definitely aware of the absurdity of software patents (and some non-software patents too). Have a quick query of him such as this one: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Greg+Aharonian to get an idea.
Greg apppears to be trying to draw attention to the issue for either selfish or altruistic reasons. Your guess is as good as mine...
... even if software patents aren't.
I've written about this idea in various places, and this seems like another good opportunity: Copyright protection for software, as it works now, is seriously messed up.
Copyright has, until recently, been well-understood to be a balance between the interests of the author and the interests of society, with the ultimate goal to enrich society. Specifically, it's a solution to the problem that, say, a book author has: if he publishes his material, it can be copied. He can maintain control of his work only by keeping it secret. So, society agrees to grant him a monopoly over his work, but with some limitations. Key among those limitations is that his ideas and techniques are NOT, repeat, NOT protected. That way society can benefit from other authors picking up those ideas and techniques and expanding upon them.
This is different from patents in that patents provide stronger protections but for a more limited time period, specifically, patents do provide a measure of protection for ideas. Also, patents can only be obtained through a process of public disclosure, so that others can pick up the ideas and perhaps build upon them.
Both mechanisms are intended to *promote* progress through the promulgation of ideas. Now, traditional copyright law has not had any publishing requirement because it hasn't been necessary. You can obscure how a machine works, but you can't hide the words you use in a book, or the notes you use in a song. Copyright without publication didn't make any sense, so no one worried about it.
Software changed that. Now, it is perfectly possible to both publish your work *and* to keep it a secret at the same time. By publishing an opaque binary while keeping the source secret, you obtain both copyright protection and trade secret protection on the same work -- and perhaps patent protection as well. This is an abuse of the system, which was never intended to provide such double or triple coverage. This abuse destroys the careful balance that was established between society and creators, at the expense of the society that is then tasked with enforcing the imbalance!
There are numerous ways in which current IP law is out of synch with the social contract that purportedly underlies it, but in my opinion this is one of the worst.
In my opinion, the way to restore the balance is to extend copyright protection only to software whose source code is published along with the binary. This does not mean that it has to be Free Software; the owner can still reserve all rights to reproduce it or prepare derivative works, but anyone who bought a copy would be able to read it and learn from it.
Companies who had important new techniques that they did not want to share with the world could refuse to publish source and rely instead on trade secret and contract law to protect their work. But the law should not provide copyright protection for that work, nor could it provide patent protection, because patents must published.
I'm actually not wholly averse to software patents, either, but such patents should be (a) short and (b) held to a very high standard for approval or review.
We need to restore the balance to IP law. It's so far out of whack right now that an increasing number of people simply consider it all to be bad, and that is a terrible outcome. IP is important, and will be increasingly important. For that reason, we need sane laws that implement the social contract mentioned in the US Constitution and provide proper balance between the competing interests.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
He probably means well and this is the first I've ever heard of this. I'm not sure about the effects of this. Greg's overarching goal has always been to make the USPTO realize that it's issuing bad patents and to fix a broken system.
I'm wondering how this serves that purpose since, by eliminating copyright on software, companies would be more inclined to get patents on every single little aspect of the software they are developing. So far from helping the patent situation, it would make it worse as companies might feel *compelled* to get patents to protect thier IP!
Greg, if you read this, please let us know what the logic is here.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
For 7-10 year development, a 20 year patent seems reasonable to me. For software (assuming there is actual legislation making them patentable, as opposed to misguided lower court decisions as we have now), the right patent duration would be about 4 days.
i think the last bit is most applicable to you: This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
Without copyright the GPL is worthless.
Without a willingness to take violations to court, or even make the threat, the GPL is worthless.
So far, alledged violations have been ignored or 'settled out of court'.
(If someone knows of a violation settled via a court, pls post a link.)
The biggest headache I have with all this legal crap is that software companies want both patents and copyrights to apply to the software product. Copyright applies to non-tangible items like the words inside a book, a musical score, and ... software. Patents apply to tangible items like engines, razor blades, sewing machine needles ... note the lack of "intellectual property."
...
I don't see how software can receive protection under both programs. I believe that's part of the problem. There's a fundamental arguement that hasn't been settled - the lawmakers need to declare that software is either IP or tangible-goods. Once that's done, you use either copyright or patent, respectively. You don't get both.
If software is IP, which is the classification I believe it should have, then you don't get patent protection. None. Can you place your "patented algorithm" in my hand? No no no, that's a piece of paper with some scribbling on it. I want just the algorithm. You can't do that? Copyright
I am the owner of Distortionsoft, the software division of www.distortionfile.com. I write and offer games on my website for purchase. I have currnetly aquired niether a patent nor a copyright for the games I develope. I request in my installer that noone manipulate or modify the game code, but do not request that users not distribute my software. I have so far found this to be effective, but fear that my characters may be stolen. If they make it even harder for me to be protected against this threat, It will not be possible for me to do so. And I will just have to hope that noone steals what is essentially my lifes work. There is a short game demo available for download on my site now that reflects what my potential is, and an explaination of future plans. I also write shorts stories on my site that are other wise un-published or protected. If someone profited from these materials without my consent, I would be powerless to stop them without the ability to gain copyrights. I don't think this decision is fair to small time developers like me. Please adress replies to blakecrawford@distortionfile.com
Personally I don't really give a 'whopping whoopty-doo' that someone has a copyright or a patent on an idea, wraps it up in the cloak of 'process' and denies it for all other uses. If someone else realizes that something can be done and improved on why don't we just let them do it? Microsoft pays for studies that show that Linux may infringe on some 200+ patents. No one set out to 'infringe' on anything, they just had an idea about a different way to do something and put the sweat equity into it to make it work. And for every one that has worked out there are several orders of magnitude worth of ideas and techniques that didn't work at all. Sourceforge has about ten times the users as they do projects, but they sure don't have ten users per project! We need a process that encourages and empowers those who can and do make changes and improve things. Instead we chase them with lawyers who want to be sure that two specific assembly language instructions don't appear one after the other because someone else already did that and has the copyright and or patent to prove it. What we have is a litigious society that punishes those without the legal muscle to defend themselves, and in the process we deny everyone the benefits of a whole generation of innovators.
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
One problem with moving to a "protect your software through patents" model is that obtaining patents is (relatively) expensive, on the order of thousands of dollars per patent on the low end, not to mention 1-3 years of time. So if the only way you can protect your work product, if it happens to be software, is through a patent, that creates a heavy bias towards needing to already have money in order to create, and protect, new software. It also forces you to wait 1-3 years to release your software if you want it protected when you release it instead of having to come back 1-3 years later and enforce your then-acquired patent.
Additionally, the vast majority of software work is not patentable - it's "mundane" stuff. But it's still expensive to produce, and still needs to be protected.
Software also deserves to be protected by copyright for another very good reason - you can duplicate it for free. Things we traditionally PATENT have a cost of construction - there are raw materials, factory for assembly, workers paid to assemble, etc, and things we've traditionally patent are used to DO something - i.e. increase efficiency, whatever. Software lives in both worlds - particular new algorithms function much like newly invented widgets in that they increase efficiency somewhere, but software can also be duplicated for free, much like what we traditionally protect with copyright.
If I produce and sell widgets that are used in a factory to increase production, I can patent my widgets and have exclusive right to produce them for 20 years. After that, other people can duplicate my widgets, BUT ONLY if they also invest in their own widget-producing factory, buy the raw materials to produce widgets, and pay people to produce widgets. I may no longer be able to charge as high of a price for widgets since I now have competitors, but I am not forced out of the widget business either, I'll just have lower margins. And people who just want a handful of widgets will still have to buy them from someone else, since the costs of starting their own widget factory will be prohibitive.
Copyright is what makes software work like widgets. Without copyright, once my software patent expires, anyone can do what my software does for free merely by copying my software. With copyright, they can still implement the same patented function, but they'll still have to pay someone else to actually write the code to implement that patented function. Copyright basically enforces a cost to duplicate producing a widget invented by someone else.
This lawsuit is backwards - copyrights for software are fine - if there's software that does something that you want to do that you don't want to pay for, write the software yourself. What we should be trying to reform is software patents. If someone patented an obvious software algorithm that's preventing you from using your own software, beat that person to a pulp.
paintball
Consider an art work created in patterns of infrared and ultraviolet light. Or a dog whistle symphony.
That wouldn't be perceptible to humans without technological aids, but I see no reason why they shouldn't be copyrightable.
Similarly object code becomes more human-intelligible when disassembled.
One potential argument would be that the object code is created from the source code, and may involve modifications of the source code which the human creator had no input in. (Compiler optimizations, for example.)
But that'd still be copyrighted as a derived work, based on the source code. If you record a song, then run it through a compressor/limiter device, the result is still your creation, even though it's been modified by machine and is no longer the same as when you performed it.
The conversion to object code is kind of like encoding audio into a representation for a different medium, like a CD player. You take the analog, digitize it, encode it as pits and lands on a CD master, and then press CDs. The data on a CD could be seen as being 'instructions' for the analog audio generation circuitry of the CD player. The only time the music is understandable to humans is when it's analog.
Similarly, a compiler/assembler convert the source code into instructions appropriate for the medium of reproduction, namely, the CPU.
Regardless of hwo this might play out, and its implications, I can't see this being retroactive to software that already exists...
Quite the contrary.
If software copyrights are struck down by a court as unconstitutional, the effect is as if they had never existed. If the constitution doesn't authorize them NOW, it didn't authorize them THEN either. (Absent a relevant amendment, of course.)
The prohibition is on PASSING retroactive LAWS (for instance, criminalizing something you did while it was legal and then busting you for it).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"Intellectual property consultant" my @$$. This guys makes money from bad patent hell, just like patent lawyers.
Anyone who pretends that the U.S. patent system is not horribly broken is disingenuous and a liar/lawyer. Any logic that people attempt to apply to this situation is totally irrelevant, because the slutty PTO (might as well just merge those fuckers together with AIPSLA, and the WIPO too, they're all on the same side exactly) is destroying innovation and EVERYONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING.
So people, don't waste your breath/keystrokes arguing with the villains (IP lawyers et.al.), because they know they're wrong already and they're straight up lying about it.
How? the way the GPL works is that it depends on copyright. Without copyright the GPL is worthless. People could "take" you code and do anything with it, not have to contribute back, or even put the GPL back on it.
But the MAIN purpose of the GPL (if I understand it correctly) is to prevent the scenario where a software author donates his work to the Public Domain, only to have someone else upgrade it and keep the upgrades proprietary, locking the author out of extending his own work in the same way. (This is particularly bad if the "improvement" is a bug fix.)
When the means to lock the author out is copyright, if copyright is declared not to apply to software this prevents the problem. The original author can turn around and incorporate the changes or make similar changes of his own without risking copyright infringement claims. So no need for GPL.
Patents, on the other hand, explicitly protect exactly such "improve it and keep the improvements" behavior. But GPL doesn't defend against those. (Fortunately, the bar for getting a patent is a LOT higher - though clearly not as high as we'd like when it comes to software.) Domething SIMILAR might be constructed to do so. But it would be a different game.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I believe this is a case that will be good for the anti-patent lobby. Patents are not meant to protect an idea but protect the know-how in getting the idea to become reality. Any software developer knows that the real substance into getting a vague software concept into reality is the code and really if patents are to be useful then they ought to contain a number of code examples that implement an idea.
Now according to this case if copyright is meant to protect a implementation of an idea and patents protect an implementation of an idea then they do the same thing. Therefore we do not need to protect software through copyrights because patents will suffice.
Now the judges involved in the case will need to really wrestle with the ideas behind copyright and patents and they will probably find themselves questioning the need for software patents when copyright offers adequate and appropriate protection for software.
The ideal outcome from this case would be the judge rulling that it is copyrights and not software patents that is most appropriate for protecting software and it should be software patents that ought to be invalidated and not copyrights. One can dream...
Yet another ironic recursive statement.
You get a copyright everywhere that respects the Berne Convention (pretty much everywhere in the world) by creating something. You can use any court anywhere to stop someone else copying the thing you created.
Hard to disband copyright in the US without renegotiating Berne. And maybe some people like copyright.
I'd mod you up because thats pretty interesting, but alas, I started all of this :(
Someone mod the paret up
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
As a contributor to several free software projects, and as European citizen, I can only applaud this guy's efforts.
No copyright on software is all FSF/GNU ever wanted. The GPL is a kludge to sort of get to that state, but having copyrights on software outlawed is of course much better.
Also, the E.U. has a rule of shorter term; with software copyrights outlawed in the US, all American software becomes public domain in the E.U.
I really hope this guy succeeds.
Because of this fucked up world we live in where one piece of creative work (movies) can be "protected" with copyright lasting forever and another piece of creative work (code) will never be "protected".
Maybe if I write my code more like a book it can be covered.
BTW, I am in Australia (spelling: America2) so if the US gets this, well will also get this.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Here's my opinion on this. If you come up with a new and innovative way to write a novel, you won't be getting licencing fees from people who move into the same genre, nor should you. Why should it be any different for an algorithm? If you want to make money from your "discovery", build a library containing your algorithm, and sell copies of it to people.
Software is nothing more than a set of (complex) written instructions. If you had appropriate hardware you could load all your applications from a book. I think copyright law is exactly the right law to apply to software and that patent law is exactly the wrong law to apply. In the case of software, copyright encourages production, patents stifle it. Any self respecting capitalist should oppose patents. Course it's all corporatists these days...
I guess US has signed treaties to honor copyrights internationally ? Or else we could make up a local patent system, which is VERY expensive for big foreign companies. And without our local patent and no copyright protection, we could copy the sw freely. Greg didn't think that US-patents are naturally not valid in other countries.
Obtaining patents requires more effort then writing 'copyrighted' or (c) and thereby 'are more difficult to obtain.' In this context, the author or editor is correct.
You're confusing Eldred v. Ashcroft with Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes. The case that "made it illegal to possess or even speak the source code to DeCSS" was Universal, a case interpreting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which never got past the Second Circuit. Eldred, on the other hand, was a Supreme Court case that upheld the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (nothing to do directly with the DMCA) and clarified the interaction between copyright and the First Amendment. If the EFF manages to get a conflicting opinion in another circuit, this clarification could help narrow the DMCA.
This is a weak analogy until it's possible to decompile object code back to its original source code. It's certainly possible to take it back to some approximation of original source code with a lot of effort, but the result will most likely be far less readable and maintainable (due to compiler optimisations, for example) and certainly not a direct copy. At best, you'd have a derivative work, but most likely you'd just have an unreadable mess.
I'd argue that your example only applies in cases where you can reverse the mechanical transformation to recreate either an exact copy or some useful alternative version (such as a thumbnail of a picture). Any sufficiently-complex piece of software cannot be reverse-engineered in a small amount of time.