Slashdot Mirror
Source Code & Copyright
cunamara writes "Patently-O has posted a discussion of Aharonian v. Gonzales . Aharonian is trying to build a database of source code as a repository of prior art. The interesting thing is in part of the decision, which is that "Conversely, if plaintiff independently creates software that is functionally identical to other software, he does not infringe any copyright on the other software's source code, even if his independently created source code is nearly identical to the copyrighted source code." Interesting. But how does one defend "nearly identical" independently created source code from a copyright infringement lawsuit?" I'm actually not as interested in the copyright side of things as I am in the notion of using something like that for prior art of software patents. The argument that source code is uncopyrightable, with some extensions could be applied to almost all, say, fiction stories since no one's written a truly new story in like five thousand years.
In the Thousand Nights and a Night.
All seventeen volumes of Sir Richard Burton's translation available at Project Gutenberg.
KFG
Copying software for a prior art repository only helps those people who have the prior art defend their code, and there's no sense in that, as who can copy code that isn't released?
I'm not a big fan of "near-identical" copyrighting source code.. It's almost like copyrighting mathematical equations. The compiler creates a framework designed to achieve predictable results, and whatever results are achieved within that framework, isn't the invention of genius, but the application of an engineering language. It's cclearly wrong to rip off chunks of people's programming and sell it as your own, but if there's proof of linear progression of programming which achieves a similiar function using a similiar process within the programming framework, there's no reason the other's work should be thrown out, or licensed against the 'prior artists'. Intellectual property is going to be such a freaking headache if shit like this is allowed to continue.
Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
the argument that source code is uncopyrightable, with some extensions could be applied to almost all, say, fiction stories since no one's written a truly new story in like five thousand years.
The idea is not what is protected under copyright, it is the work itself which is protected under copyright. Just because the idea implemented in a story (or computer program for that matter) has been done before, that does not mean that someones actual book, movie or videogame is somehow immune from copyright.
Patents, on the other hand... Well, let's not get started on patents...
For US citizens it important to get organised. FFII has an USA mailing list. Perhaps it might serve as a breeding ground for a US campaign which becomes equivalent to the EU campaign effort. Americans are perfect communicators in the field of software patents but lack anti-swpat organisation.
Currently the rest of the world suffers from the American unability to get anti-Software Patent interests organised.
Dismissed. The case is now on appeal.
The idea that something may not infringe copyright in spite of the fact that it is nearly identical, is a bit of a stretch. It is true sometimes. For instance, if there is a standard way of doing things then bits of code will be identical. On the other hand, for those bits of code that may be copyrighted, the statement sounds nonsensical. Remember, not all code can be copyrighted. Much/most/all the code SCO claimed was in violation of its (disputed) copyrights is not copyrightable.
For example, there aren't much variation in ways to code a doubly linked list. If a project in java needs one, you need to write it yourself, because it isn't in java.util.* yet. With a standard coding style in that language, I've seen quite a few near identical looking implementations for an assignment.
It's about time to stop suing over one snippet of code in a project - there are only so many ways to do the basic tasks. It's how you use the individual lego blocks to build something that counts - if you copy the whole design and claim it as your own, then you deserve to be sued, not for using five white ones to build a wall, as everyone does that.
The argument that source code is uncopyrightable,
If every bit of code was copyrightable, even a "Hello World" program would be a copyright infringement if it were copied out of a book and posted to the web. In this context, it is easy to see that not everything is eligible for copyright.
with some extensions could be applied to almost all, say, fiction stories since no one's written a truly new story in like five thousand years.
That's why parodies do not infringe copyrights.
In the first sentence, it's clear that the emphasis is on "five thousand years", as the author intended. In the second it is not clear where the emphasis is. Is it on the "truely new story", "no one's", "written". Is the entire sentence meant to be taken as exclamatory?
True, the editor could have used "...in over five thousand years" or perhaps even "...a truly new story; in five thousand years!", but I think the "like" gives enough pause and emphasis to the sentance to truely carry across the authors point.
People aren't using "like" flippantly for no reason. Sometimes it is used like "umm" and "aaa", but sometimes it is, like, very useful in emphasising certain sections of the sentence. OK?
May the Maths Be with you!
Mathematical formulas are not copyrightable.
Next !
Google Books seems like an ideal solution to this problem. Of course, I'd talk to Google about it first. Your source code repository would be transformed into book form with the source code as large excerpts and the revision control system being your chapter introductions. This would force the repository to be something organized and not just a mish-mash of inserted code. Their About page says that they'll show you a couple of pages. I would ask them to restrict the search to only showing the section introduction and a 15 lines surrounding the code in question. Google could then wrap an API around it to make it easy to programatically search.
Then, there's the issue of licensing. This would be, I think, the first legitimate use of the GPL (not the LGPL) for a published document. Google promises to protect the work as a dark search until valid copyrights expire. If you put a hypertext link into each section where the code can be properly licensed (i.e. downloaded), then it works as a prior art repository and as a code reuse archive.
I'm not a big fan of "near-identical" copyrighting source code.. It's almost like copyrighting mathematical equations.
It's not just like it. It is copyrighting mathematical equations, or more appropriately, mathematical algorithms. All software is a mathematical algorithm.
Of course, publications containing mathematical algorithms are copyrighted every day. Papers, books, lecture notes, etc, etc. But to argue that if I've used a Fourier Transform in my paper means you can't is obviously a fallacy. To argue that you can't even if you change the symbols or the presentation is ludacrious.
Same goes for code.
May the Maths Be with you!
I think the truth is that people instinctively know that copyrights (and patents esp on software) are harmfull, and that's why there are so many legal challanges to it and attempts to reform copyright law. But the truth is that the system is not going to change.
Rather than playing all sorts of legal tricks, I think people would be better served with outright defiance. Ignore copyrights no matter what, use technology to secure that right in the best way's possible, and eventually the system will come arround after it's totally obvious that they're irrelavent.
I know that the few examples of people they've attacked and left strung up to die were pretty harsh, but in practice the risks of being left behind in the information age and not getting practical use out of the code out there far exceed the risks of getting pounced by the legal system. In all truth, people are better off ignoring the legal witch hunt and just go on doing what they need to.
Er, what's wrong with java.util.LinkedList?
I fear that in today's society, the Adelphi charter is irrelevant and misdirected.
Keep in mind the real priorties:
1: Corporate rights shall be preserved.
2: Corporate freedom of action shall be maximized.
3: Opportunity for revenue and profit shall not be impeded.
I just went to see "Why We Fight" this weekend, including a Q&A with the writer/director, afterward. To be short, sweet, and simple, it wasn't a rant against the Bush administration. They are merely the latest (and most willing?) phase in the rise to power of the military-industrial complex. The movie was a warning about corporatism, rooted in Ike's parting message about the military-industrial complex.
In retrospect, the Free Software movement is perhaps one of the most important ones in today's world. As far as I can tell, it is the ONLY major endeavour of modern life not utterly dominated by corporate interests. No wonder there is so much interest in things like the DMCA, DRM, HDMI, TPM, etc. I suspect the fine-tuning will be to push Free Sofware into the correct corral, so it's developments can continue to be harvested, yet at the same time make it irrelevant to day-today life.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
there was a man. This man took an ant, increased its size twenty-fold using an anti-shrink ray, which he patented as the 'grow ray'. He then shoved a coke bottle up the ant's excuse for an ass, and set the beastie on fire. The end.
That's got to be pretty new? _
which is totally what she said
It's not the plot, it's the way you tell it. Otherwise publishers wouldn't bother with new authors, and would just keep reprinting out-of-copyright works from Project Gutenberg.
Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
The problem with software patents is not copyright it's trade secrets. The source code is never released, so no database of prior art can cover any closed source software. The more innovative the algorithms, the more likely it will be strongly protected with tradesecrets and the less useful a prior art database would be.
Not only that, the source code isn't always a good description of an algorithm which is why every project I've ever worked on has lots of comments and documentation delivered with it.
So I don't see what the point of building a database of prior art actually achieves! How is it different from the GNU libraries? They're partial coverage of software available in sourcecode form too.
Bold comment, but I would say compleatly untrue. Sure if you define a story in broad terms like "a romance that is forbiden and it ends with a tragedy" you can fit a few thousand books, movies and plays into that. But only one of those is "Romeu and Juliet", would you say that all of those are the same?
I guess you will try to argue that the newer are "rip-offs" from the original. But I would say that there's no culture without "riping off". Coping and improving is what we do, and when is done well it can be good, very good. Most of the music is done in a similar way, good musitian influence the newer generation and were infuenced by big names that he used to hear when he was young.
I believe that all this race to protect every single idea that can be selled to the point that people can't replay a "buffy episode" in the comunity theather or Joseph Doe can't create a fan fiction featuring batman or maybe "batguy" is bad for the culture in general.
All that said, I would like to say that if this Joseph Doe character starts selling, or attempt to get a profit from his fan-fiction, then maybe the original authors could ask for a piece of those profits.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
I've just patented a method for comparing source code trees and tell Senior Gonzales that he is now violating my Intellectiual Property and I'm going to sue his ass off (as they say in America).
http://fudwatcher.blogspot.com/
davecb5620@gmail.com
...since no one's written a truly new story in like five thousand years.
i thought Brokeback Mountain was fiercely original.
but yeah, i'd rather read crappy source code. i'm gonna cancel my subscription to Penthouse Forum and get like, Dr. Dobbs' Journal instead.
You ought to be able to show that code is non-copyrightable if it logically follows from problem specification. If you can show that this code is the one and only way of solving the given problem, then it is obviously "obvious", and is no more copyrightable than "hi, how are you?".
Two decades ago when doing stupid things with neural nets was fashionable in computer science, I built a neural net C compiler. Odd thing is it worked on small programs so I expanded it.
...
Its parser would takes code of the form foo=foo+bar; and reduces it to foo+=bar; or other minimal C with translation to var1+=var2; It would then hand that off to the NN compiler. It then ran every bit of C code I could find through it. Its interesting that there were only about 160 (if I remember right) common statements that appeared more than once and most of them were followed by a very limited subset of other statements.
If you reduced a program another step into:
common_line1;
common_line23;
common_line7;
It ended up that many bits of code where exactly the same in many programs or had very small differences.
The most interesting stat was most C used less than about 100 common statements but the guys at Bells Labs added about 40 (of which I think Joe Ossanna was responsible for 30 or so) and BSD guys added about 10. The IOCCC entries didn't change the results but I don't think the compiler ever got any of them right even after a cb and extra reduction step which says something about their code.
The argument that source code is uncopyrightable, with some extensions could be applied to almost all, say, fiction stories since no one's written a truly new story in like five thousand years.
The difference is that programming languages are usually pretty logical and to achieve an aim there's usually an obvious and correct way of solving a problem. For example if I asked a collection of programmers to write a function to sum the elements of an array it would inevitably look like the following (for C at least).
int sumArray(int array[], int elements) {
int i, t = 0;
for (i = 0; i elements; i++) t += array[i];
return t;
}
There would be variations but everyone would essentially write the same code.
When writing literature, writers are restricted by the language, but for some they are extremely flexible and the same concepts can be written about and result in a completely different book.
It's the same for any art. The Queen of England has had hundreds of portrates painted and yet they are all very different depite the use of similar materials. Yes the basic subject is the same but you cannot say the paintings are the same. Coding is more like photography.
At it's extreme source code is a mathematical description of an algorithm. It's either write or wrong. I can't see how you can copywrite it any more than copywriting 2 + 2 = 4.
I noticed that one yesterday, kind of gives IBM some ammo as it relates to
the SCO methods and concepts theory now doesn't it. If it is a little different and written by somebody else it is not copyrightable.
Got Code?
What they wrote ended up having large bursts of code that was identical to the IBM PC BIOS. Sometimes there is only one good way of doing something.
Well, this is what I remembered reading years ago. It was an unusual exercise because the actual amount of code was small, so the potential legal cost per byte was very high. If there is someone out there who actually was part of this project, maybe they can post their experiences, and say whether I have got it vaguely right.
The case of George Harrison and his song "My Sweet Lord" hinged on the fact that he may have heard the song "He's So Fine", remembered it and subconsciously copied it. The standard seems to be VERY relaxed when deciding if copying has taken place.
Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. It is the expression of the idea which creates value for the copyrighted work. Anyone can write a 4-bar blues progression in a-Major, just don't rip off B.B. King's lyrics or melody while you're doing it. We become richer, intellectually, as a society when creators are forced to think beyond what's already been done, to create their own expression of common cultural ideas, not by letting a bunch of hacks monkey around with things which they would otherwise not be able to create on their own.
Could be a lot worse. Look at AWTEventMulticaster if you want to see what a singlely linked list looks like as written by some Lisp programmers. It's actually a tree with all the subtrees on one side terminal nodes using subclassing to turn it into a list, and is traversed by recursion.
fiction stories since no one's written a truly new story in like five thousand years.
People wrote original fictions back 5 thousand years ago? heh! Imagine that.
Mountain: the final frontier.
These are the voyages of the Bare-Foot Enterprise. Its five stone mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new food and new women; to boldly go where no man has gone before.
Ahh... that's where it came from...
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
While I don't like the idea of patents in software - there is one huge advantage of patents: when the patent expires, the patented technology becomes Public Domain and can never be patented again.
Patents have a maximum life of 20 years as opposed to copywrites - which for all practical purposes - are forever. Nobody alive today is likely to see Mickey Mouse become public domain, even though copywrites are supposed to be for a 'limited' time.
Patents are viewed by the patent office as a 'teaching method'; when discussing a patent an examiner will say something like: "Willford (referring to a patent by the name of the primary inventor) teaches so and so..." As such patents are a very useful record of how to do things; they keep technology from being lost when the people involved with it die. Because of this patents are very useful to society as a whole.
For example: Philo Farnsworth patented a vacuum tube which was able to produce controlled desktop thermonuclear fusion in 1967. The problem with the Farnsworth tube is that once the fusion reaction started the plasma became so hot that it was difficult to get more fuel into it. Of course, that is a problem with any hot fusion device; magnetic confinement simply hasn't reached the levels that Farnsworth achieved in 1967, so the problem has not yet become apparent in their research.
Had Farnsworth not patented his work (U.S. Patent number 3,386,883) we would have no record of what he did, and the thoughts of one of the most insightful inventors in history would have been lost forever.
The fusor tube is a brilliant design which deserves much more attention than it has received.
and Slashdot keeps posting the same ones over and over...
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___ 1.htm
Joyce's Ulysses, Mann's Magic Mountain, Proust's Rememberence of Things Past, Faulkner's As I Lay Dying - these are just off the top of my head. If you think there hasn't been an original fictional story in 5,000 years, you haven't read much.
The point in the summary is very simple:
If you don't copy someone else's work you will never run afoul of copyright.
Copyright is the right of the copyright holder to control copying.
If you don't copy then you are obviously not infringing that right.
Now: if two or more people write code independently (without sight of each other's work) and that code happens to be identical what you have is a coincidence. None of the people involved have a cause for damages under a theory of copyright infringement.
Compare that with patents where the first to invent can file a patent application. If another person then implements something that solves the same problem in a similar way they could face a patent infringement lawsuit, even after working entirely independently.
Copyright is a protection against copying. If you independently create a similar work then (at least in theory) it will not infringe copyright even if it is "near identical" to the previous work.
Contrast with patents, where your software will infringe a patent if it falls within that patent's claims, even if you created it entirely independently and had no idea the patented technology even existed - one reason why software patents are such a bad idea.
However, if your source code is "near identical" to the source code of another program, then a lawyer is going to have a field day waving the two versions of the code under a judge's nose and inviting the judge to draw the "obvious" conclusion. In a civil case the copyright holder only needs to show it is more likely than not that you copied their code.
So to answer the original question: "how does one defend "nearly identical" independently created source code from a copyright infringement lawsuit?"
In the end, the only way to do this is by being able to demonstrate that you did not copy the previous version. So that means having clear, documented processes (clean room techniques etc) so that you have enough evidence of independent creation to overcome what could otherwise be a powerful prima facie case of infringement.
That said, I suspect it is pretty unlikely that this particular situation would arise with anything other than very trivial programs. You're more likely to end up with either (i) flagrant lifting of code, or (ii) disputes over whether a "reimplementation" of an earlier program crosses the line from being an independent program of the same type, to having copied substantial parts of the earlier program (e.g. "look and feel" disputes).
How's IBM doing it in the SCO lawsuit over Linux?
I mean, that's one of SCO's claims, the argument that code that is similar because it's functionally equivalent must have been copied. Which is ludicrous. I've written code and then found open source equivalents that had the same function names, the same variable names, almost the same code, because some things just are natural and obvious.
To argue that similarities imply copyright infringement would like claiming that if two stories have a dog named "spot" that rides a firetruck, that's copyright infringement. Software contains elements much more complex and much more constrained than narrative, so even large sequences of common code are not automatically evidence of copyright violation.
I'm sitting here laughing at every one of you...read Sun Tzu...the copyirght war is over...you lost...and you're still debating how to reason with them....he he he he....pffttt....halarious!
Andy Out!
Your honor, you can see at line 10 where the defendant clearly copied plaintiffs variable list, "int i, j, k;".
"The argument that source code is uncopyrightable, with some extensions could be applied to almost all, say, fiction stories since no one's written a truly new story in like five thousand years."
Someone with this shallow an understanding of the written word and story-telling should be ignored in-toto as to their views on copyright.
P.S. What's with the friggin' extended posting intervals?
and thank you Hemos for displaying your ignorance on the front page.
This is exactly the crucial difference between copyrights and patents.
A copyright restricts you only from copying the work in question. There is absolutely no restriction on coming up with the same work independently, and using it. Thus like George Harrison's suit mentioned in the sibling post, many copyright suits depend on showing that someone did / didn't have access to the work in question.
A patent on the other hand gives the holder the exclusive right to an invention or idea. Like the other guy who invented the telephone independently of Bell, you will have absolutely no rights to your own invention if it has been previously patented, for the life of the patent anyway.
A defence of independent discovery works for copyright infringements, not for patents. This has always been the case, so I'm not sure why it's news today.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
And this is a headline story on a well-read news page.
"The argument that source code is uncopyrightable, with some extensions could be applied to almost all, say, fiction stories since no one's written a truly new story in like five thousand years."
Flamebait. This is tantamount to saying nothing unexpected has happened to anyone in 5000 years. Ever notice how people who make this claim never offer a serious argument? Much less some examples. It's just tossed out there. Those of us who find the statment infantile are all too familiar with the pattern. "What about N?" we ask, to which the flamebaiter replies," Well, that's really just a hybrid of X, Y, and Z, with a little bit of Q thrown in."
There are really only three ways of responding to this stupid, nihilistic view of creativity and culture. You can give into it and accept the premise simply because you lack the time and energy to attack a black-hole argument based upon bitterness, or you can do the healthy thing and ignore it... or you can get sick of just ignoring it and flip the bird.
On behalf of those who are tired of just rolling our eyes and letting you get away with it, go fuck yourself.
That is exactly what an <em> tag is for.
--
onedotzero
thedigitalfeed.co.uk
The grammar Nazi's might bemoan it
The grammar "Nazi's" what? The grammar Nazi's friends?
Ahhhhhhhhhh! Ahhhhhhhhhh! Ahhhhhhhhh!
But how does one defend "nearly identical" independently created source code from a copyright infringement lawsuit?"
Use a logic programming language for coding. Lawyers never understand formal logic, thus logic programs are safe from any lawsuits against them, either valid or not.
There you are, staring at me again.
1. Copyright exists from the moment of creation, regardless of whether the work is ever published, and regardless of whether there's a copyright notice. Formalities like including the notice and filing a registration can be very helpful, particularly if you want to sue an infringer and collect money from him, but they are necessary for the existence of the copyright.
2. The copyright holder enjoys five exclusive rights over his creation: the rights to copy, distribute, display, perform, and create derivative works. Derivative works include modifications, translations, etc. He can grant licenses to others to allow them to do any combination of these things. Running software mainly falls under the right to copy since you need to copy the work into temporary storage in order to use it. The GPL focuses mainly on the right to distribute.
3. Slightly oversimplified, the test for copyright infringement is access to the work plus "substantial similarity." If you had access to the original, and produce something substantially similar, the burden shifts to you to show non-infringement. If you didn't have access to the original, no infringement. Period. If the two works aren't substantially similar, no infringement. Period. Of course, the legal and factual determination of what constitutes substantial similarity is where it gets interesting.
4. Copyright does *not* protect ideas, only the *expression* of ideas. If there's only one way to express an idea, you can't copyright that expression. An example is a language (computer or otherwise) -- since the idea behind the language and the way it is expressed are inextricably linked (i.e., the vocabulary, grammar, and syntax), the idea of the language and its expression are said to have merged, resulting in no copyright. APIs often fall under this analysis as well -- if there's only one way to interface to a system, that interface may not be subject to copyright.
5. "Fair use" is a defense to infringement -- it applies where the court finds (based on a number of factors enumerated in the copyright act) that the infringement was excused because the social good resulting from the infringement outweighs the harm to the copyright holder. Except for the relatively few areas where the Supremes or enough circuit courts have made a ruling (as in the Betamax decision), you never an absolute guarantee that fair use will apply; it's always a roll of the dice based on how a court weighs all the factors.
(Note: the above is all based on US law. Most countries are roughly similar, but there are differences.)
You can't copyright a particular method of playing guitar. You can't copyright a process in writing a song. You can copyright the song itself, though. That is the end product of a creative process and should be considered unique to the artist.
As that relates to code, the code itself should not be copyrighted. In programming there are only so many ways to arrive at the same solution (sometimes), and copyrights could potentially remove ALL of those apporaches as options. The finished work should be copyrighted and protected in ways similar to music copyrights.
With music, if another artist clearly uses elements of the song in their own work without permission, it can be considered infringement. Software should be treated the same way. A user interface, a particular structure, and novel ideas should be copyrightable. It's the end result that is the work, the source is part of the creative process.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
While deep under the covers it all breaks down to numbers, I'm not sure I see how you can compare a Fourier Transform to the source code to Microsoft Word, FireFox or StarCraft. Just because math is involved in creating software, it is not the same as saying that math IS the software.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
The grammar Nazi's might bemoan it, but the use of "like" in the article summary was more effective than if Hemos had used an exclamation mark. For example.
No one's written a truly new story in like five thousand years
No one's written a truly new story in five thousand years!
In the first sentence, it's clear that the emphasis is on "five thousand years", as the author intended. In the second it is not clear where the emphasis is. Is it on the "truely new story", "no one's", "written". Is the entire sentence meant to be taken as exclamatory?
That is the most contrived defense of sloppy grammar I've ever, like, read.
It had nothing to do with emphasis; it was just the in vogue bastardization of "like" to mean "approximately", or "circa", or "about", or "around".
"Like" should be used to point out similitudes in otherwise different things, but not to mean "nearly, but not quite", or for emphasis:
Right: "She was large, like a prize heffer".
Wrong: "She was like two hundred pounds."
Wrong: "She was, like, fat."
People aren't using "like" flippantly for no reason. Sometimes it is used like "umm" and "aaa", but sometimes it is, like, very useful in emphasising certain sections of the sentence. OK?
They're using "like" because they're lazy or ignorant or just because everyone else is doing it, and no, it's not okay. As has been pointed out, we have typography and punctuation to provide emphasis where required. We also have several perfectly good synonyms for "approximately", if you can't be arsed to say or type that many syllables.
It had nothing to do with emphasis; it was just the in vogue bastardization of "like" to mean "approximately", or "circa", or "about", or "around".
You have, like, totally misunderstood the usage.
May the Maths Be with you!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One of the big problems I see with copyrighting source code is how do you teach programming (no matter the language) without showing examples? Looking at examples and then trying to replicate something similar is how we learn to use a programming language. If all the ideas (hashing, tables, objects, etc) get copyrighted, then how do we teach the next generation of programmers?
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
But how does one defend "nearly identical" independently created source code from a copyright infringement lawsuit?
Simple: Spend ten times as much on lawyers than the plaintiffs. Same way any court case is decided.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
In that work, Borges posits an author who deliberately rewrites "Don Quixote" word for word. And it is said that the rewrite is "infinitely richer".
I am not American and so there may be points of your legal system that I misunderstand but to me it seems that the ability to patent business methods and software has muddied the waters. Patents are not the same thing as copyright.
Here in the UK you cannot patent a business method or software. However, you do own the copyright to any software you create. This means that someone cannot simply copy your code and market it as their own. However, someone can create their own software that does the same thing as yours.
The issue is not prior art. The issue is copying. If you feel that they have copied your work without permission you can sue, but you can't sue because they copied your idea.
at odds, or becoming increasingly divergent.
Back when copyright was first implemented, it granted the author 14 years, with an option to extend the copyright for an additional 14. Now, think about how difficult it was at that point to disseminate a work of authorship - geographic considerations alone would provide quite an obstacle, so even with 14 years, there were many challenges faced by those who produced creatived works.
Contrast that with today, where the means exist to distribute a creative work for a miniscule fraction of the cost. With the internet, the geographic penetration is limitless...anyone with access to the net can have access to the means to legally acquire a copy of your work. The huge irony in all this: distribution (and by extension, income derived from said distribution), has become a non-issue. And yet, all the while that technology has made this possible, there have been major extensions to the term of a copyright. Copyright holders, quite literally, are having their cake and eating it too. Because of this, I opine that current terms of copyright are FAR removed from their original intent. If anything, I'd argue that the term of a copyright should have been reduced to reflect the increased accessibility that copyright holders now have to their respective audiences.
::::not by letting a bunch of hacks monkey around with things which they would otherwise not be able to create on their own.
and yet there's that famous quote:
"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants." --Isaac Newton
I guess Newton was a simmian hack by your bounded thought.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
On one hand, as a programmer I don't like the idea of coming up with a great idea, but being a smaller company take a few months to develop it. Word gets out and some bigger company makes a very similar product and is able to release it before mine. Then again some software patents are rediculous. MS tried to patent generating list from tag words in source code in Visual Studio. Maybe they did develop it first, but that has become a standard IDE feature now. Only bigger ideas should be patentable. If one company keep releasing new features and another one just copies them, the original will still win. But if both do and they bounce new ideas off eachother, this will help both, so let the best one win. There should also be time frame when you can patent software. It's pretty f**ked up to let everyone use the FAT system then 10 years later patent it and charge royalties.
-Jesse
First post! (just in case I am...)
He could have made a claim that a database of software used for comparison is fair use. Google makes similar arguments. That might have worked.
This is the second time I've had to launch into this in as many days, and it is making me seriously consider an Evolutionary Linguist troll account.
Language changes. The reason people use "like" to mean "approximately" or "around" is that it works. People understand it. It is concise.
There's no reason you get to pick the rules, and there is no reason why the older rules should automatically be considered better.
Now, if it hinders the efficiency of the language for expressing ideas, you're justified. For example, if someone were using "like" in place of the more compact, less confusing comma, I would side with you.
Furthermore, consultation with my Roget's has confirmed that "approximating" and "approximative" are both valid synonyms of like.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
No, he wasn't and you fail to comprehend the basic difference betwene copying someone elses work and basing your own work on someone elses ideas. Note the word ideas here. Isaac Newton expressed old ideas in new ways, he did not just copy someone elses expression of those ideas and claim them for himself.
Let me put it this way. I can learn how to pay guiter by picking up a copy of BB King's boxed set and play all his songs over and over and over until I understand the mechanics of the guitar. This even works for art, I could paint the Mona Lisa, studying Da Vinci's understanding of light and shadows until I'm a competent painter. However, in both cases I have not made society any richer intellectually. TO do so I would have to take my understanding of the guitar or painting and express the same ideas (common themes in blues music for instance) in new and different ways by writing my own blues tunes or trying to paint the next Mona Lisa.
That's the old saying. And if you think about it... Say you are a very skilled programmer and you optimize your code down to it's most optimal; The chances it will be optimized the same way another equally skilled programmer would optimize it gets very high. So where does that leave us?
In theory, if you want code to do the same thing, but look drastically different, chances are your code will not be optimized as well as it should be. You could even say, the more "spaghetti" your code, the less likely you are to infringe prior art. But who wants spaghetti code?
Average quality of commercial code is quite low - it's not worth been stolen. And when you see clean, well made code, rest assured: people behind the code are connected to Open Source.
;-)
Your post seemed convincing until the above. Open Source has a lot of crap code too. Now your post seems like mere zealotry. Sure you can cherry pick some example and find good stuff, but there is good stuff in commercial environments too. On the other side I've had friends doing compiler research gag when looking at portions of gcc. I've seen poorly written and poorly implemented code in OSS also. OSS is not all that different from commercial in terms of quality. It is the programmer that makes code good, not the license, and many of those programmers writing good OSS code have day jobs where they write good commercial code. Many other programmers who write good commercial code have better things to do with their free time that contribute to OSS.
just as in normal life you would try to *NOT* show anybody you dirty undies?
So you are afraid of showing people whom you will never meet your dirty undies but you are willing to show people you work with every day your dirty undies? What a load of crap you are showing.
In the first sentence, it's clear that the emphasis is on "five thousand years", as the author intended. In the second it is not clear where the emphasis is. Is it on the "truely new story", "no one's", "written". Is the entire sentence meant to be taken as exclamatory?
But this is attempting to add value to something that has none. In this case, what difference does it make where he puts his emphasis? The sentence still carries the exact same meaning. "Like" is just an extra word that does tell me how he means to say the sentence verbally, but it does not convey any more information.
He attempts to use a speaking technique for writing. It does not work. At best its awkward.
Given the genuine nature of softrware, software is copyrightable... it is not patentable.
d iscuss
Copyright term length is way way out of wack and sucks more than patent term length.
I fully believe in the ability of any human to advance and improve upon the works of those before them. This is the unique quality of man over all other known creatures.
I belive in giving credit where it is genuinely earned but I do not support the false constraints of such IP upon the unique quality of our being.
Its all a matter of honesty. And honestly, software by its very nature is not patentable. That is provable too.
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/priorart-
Now think about it. To be honest and remove the fraud of software patents, then he won't have to build up such a data base of prior art to defend against software patents.
I've noticed effort lately to alter the meaning or scope attached to "copyrights" and "Patents" as it applies to software. Mostly in defence of software patents.
Now maybe there is something to software not being copyrightable, but the primary current battle is that of "Software Patents"
Does a copyright suppress the creation of functionally similiar but different code? NO!
If he wants to solidify his arguement, then he has no choice but to prove software is not patentable.
Because untill you remove the fraudlent cover of patentability, you won't be able to see what is not even copyrightable.
This is why modern cars are so similar appearing, there's just no way around the wind tunnel when you are trying to reduce drag and increase mileage. There's a shape that works, and with tiny variations, that's about it. Perhaps software is marginally different, but in the end, I would imagine you will be seeing similar code for similar function.
What that means legally, no idea anymore. Starting to not care either. I do feel patenting of code is beyond absurd. After that, not even sure if copyright is all that valuable anymore. I think the point is moot anyway, I don't give the economy much more before it completely implodes due to the printing presses running non stop for the last two decades and the near destruction of manufacturing and the emphasis on middleman skimming as being the primary business of the US. My best guess is they'll throw another huge war at us right before that happens,along with some more phony "domestic terror" attacks, so worrying about who owns what lines of codes is going to be way down the list of important things then.
interesting, but how does one defend "nearly identical" independently created source code from a copyright infringement lawsuit?
Use a clean room development process. To understand why this is so, you must understand how the burdens of proof are distributed in a copyright case. Initially, a plaintiff bears the burden to prove (by a preponderance of the evidence) copying of his work. It does not suffice to prove that the works are merely similar, as you would for a patent case. However, the burden can be satisfied by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence would be the credible testimony of someone who saw the copying being done.
Circumstantial evidence can be shown in two ways: (i) by showing access to the work and substantial similarity; or (ii) by showing striking similarity, which is greater, somehow, than another standard called "virtual identity." If the plaintiff meets his burden, the burden shifts to the defendant, who can nevertheless prevail if she can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the similarities can be accounted for by independent development. The difficulty is that it is often hard to prove the negative. This can be done, among other ways, by using a clean room.
If you have access to the evil empire's work, what you can do is to use your knowlege to write a specification of the product you want to have made. Then, to isolate the work from the access, have a gatekeeper (usually a lawyer) confirm that the specification does not contain any protectible expression, and then hire a third party engineer who has never had access to the work. Then you can go back and forth, using the gatekeeper to assure that no expression infects the third party engineer. Voila, an independently developed product that is demonstrably independent.
You can also try to prove independent development in various other ways, such as by credible testimony and documentation of independent development. But then you are subject to the whims of a jury's interpretation of the facts. Clean room is the best way to go, if you can.
in the case of code or engineering in general it doesnt work that way.
Maybe its something more complex and highly specialized. Maybe it's a program on linguistic analysis and I don't want to have to re-invent the wheel with regards to simply fetching bodies of text from a database, so i find pre-existing code for that specific component of my program.
even better!, Einstein came up with E=mc^2, but it was others adding practical application to that theoretical concept which finally yielded viable atomic reactors. Imagine if you will that those who came after him were not allowed to apply E=mc^2, or better yet didnt know about it. Would there even be nuclear reactors today?
Unlike with music, movies, or paintings; code and blueprints can be added to to produce a completely separate work.
The common automobile is another good example of this. It's built around now hundred year old systems, but new innovations are continually released. Imagine now if they were not allowed to use existing brake systems or engine technology. In short, they'd spend so much time re-inventing the piston engine they wouldnt be able to dedicate any to more interesting features like traction control or collision avoidance radar.
In other words, its incredibly short sighted to say intellectual growth is not stimulated by allowing others to build upon existing ideas/technology.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants." --Isaac Newton
Newton actually said that to taunt one of his rivals, who was a dwarf.
#1 - Copyright only exists when the idea is expressed in to/on to a tangible medium.
#3 - Actually there are various levels of similarity. Besides substanstial similarity, there is striking similarity. Also there is something called access. Did the defendent have access to the copyrighted work? Access can be hard to prove, but if there was wide dissemination of the copyrighted work (it was a top record 10 on the charts), then access can be infered.
But other than those two points, you nailed it pretty much.
Libertas in infinitum
Keep this in mind:
Patents are for processes, formulas, protocols, new ways of doing things.
Copyrights are for the expression of ideas in a creative context.
The threshold for copyright is a "minimal degree of creativity"
Whereas the threshold for a patent is quite high of a "novel inventiveness"
Libertas in infinitum
You're confusing intelletual property protection systems and I'm not sure if it's on purpose or if you really don't unserstand how intellectual property law works.
First of all, mathematical expressions are facts and thus cannot be copyrighted. Einstein's theory is safe from being copyrighted. Only the presentation of facts may be copyrighted so a math bok can be protected from unauthorized copying.
Programs can be copyrighted because there are a myriad fo ways a function can be written even if only a small haldful are the most efficient. They are distinct enough to warrant protection. besides, you are always free to license libraries to build your applications or develop your own method to work around what you may consider unreasonable terms.
Automobiles are protected by patents. Companies are free to license patents as the need. The development of new science and technological breakthroughs has moved beyond the individual though they are still free to develop new ideas if they so desire, just don't expect a free-ride because you don't have the funding. The problem with the patent system is not that it's expensive, the problem is it's litered with minefields of bogus or submarine patents owned by IP companies who se sole purpose is to lie in wait of technologies they own spurious patents on are developed and mature under the guidance of very wealthy corporations. The IE patent dispute between Eolas and Microsoft is a great example of this system gone horribly wrong.
I disagree with you on programs.
you see i have twin degrees, one of which is computer science.
All programs are are application of mathematical concepts, in particular those surrounding sets and matricies come to mind. There are mathematical laws bounding the algorithms involved and upper bounds to the efficiency one can obtain. At those upper bounds there are few and in some cases only one known method of achieving said goal with software.
Thus it is my opinion (which is heavily backed by experience and grounding in CS) that programs are merely minutely detailed and minutely complicated formulas.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"since no one's written a truly new story in like five thousand years."
This is an interesting statement, for what works can be claimed as truly original? Any cultural based product had its roots in education and learning, and is thus not wholly insulated from prior art. (the past)
I suppose if you are a copyright holder you would want everyone to ignore that question. The two edged sword of copyright can prevent people being able to publish their own ideas, if they are expressed in a manner too similar to others, and thus deny their right of free expression. Granting rights to some should not take away those same rights from others.
I invest untold amounts of money in my intellectual property and that alone should qualify a person to being given a legal monopoly on those works.I don't mind people using my legally created software but if they make money on the software or similar I require a license to be agreed to or I can claim infringement, based on loss of profits, no matter how long it takes me to create profit on my own efforts if ever because social and ecomonic disadvantage is real and so if only rich corporations can develope ideas to profit then I suggest the corporations buy us all out of the software creating business.I'll sell my 56 computer programs but not cheap.
I invest untold amounts of money in my intellectual property and that alone should qualify a person to being given a legal monopoly on those works.I don't mind people using my legally created software but if they make money on the software or similar I require a license to be agreed to or I can claim infringement, based on loss of profits, no matter how long it takes me to create profit on my own efforts if ever because social and ecomonic disadvantage is real and so if only rich corporations can develope ideas to profit then I suggest the corporations buy us all out of the software creating business.I'll sell my 56 computer programs but not cheap.
The argument that source code is uncopyrightable, with some extensions could be applied to almost all, say, fiction stories since no one's written a truly new story in like five thousand years.
Or, conversely, that if you take a published blob of source code, rearrange the order of a few functions and change the variable names, then *poof*, Pyramus and Thisbe magically turns into the "different" story Romeo and Juliet.
No matter how you approach it, patenting and/or copyrighting software flies in the face of sanity. Software, as the implementation of a mathematical algorithm, expresses nothing less than universal truths. You simply can't have a monopoly on those.
If a company wants to re-create the universe and there is a market to buy such a thing then that company deserves to be given a legal monopoly for their efforts for a time to regain their investments and profit if possible.
Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
This claim is popular; it's also clearly false to fact.
The expression of the idea is already protected by natural property rights. The painter owns who owns the paint and canvas already owns the expression of the idea of the painting; it's the painting, the bits of paint and canvas which he used to express his idea.
Copyright covers the the right to suppress the exposition of any idea which a court deems too closely related to a copyrighted idea. The original expression of the idea is irrelevant: any expression of a related idea is equally protected.
If I make a painting twice the size of another painting, or the same size but with different inks, the expression is fundamentally different. It's still a violation of copyright, because the ideas underlying the two paintings are fundamentally related. Copyright protects against expressing any idea which a judge thinks is too closely related to the idea that is forbidden.
For example, suppose I write a novel in blue ink, in a cursive script on yellowing paper. If copyright were about copying the original expression, it would only protect against copying the the text, in blue ink, in a cursive script, on yellowing paper.
It doesn't. It protects the underlying ideas; the collective notions of words, sentences, and phrases that were assembled to make the idea of the book. It's illegal to copy the ideas related to the book; the words and sentences that make up the underlying notion, no matter whether I type them on a typewriter on blue paper, encode them in morse code, or set a bunch of ones and zeros on a computer disk; if the idea that I express can be mapped back to an idea related to the idea of the manuscript, it's a violation of copyright.
I can even change every single word of the manuscript, and still violate copyright: it's illegal to make a translation of a work without consent.
Several related ideas, such as the book with only a few sentences or pictures changed, are also not legal. The expression of the idea is NOT what is protected; it's the idea itself; the words and sentences, not the paper and ink.
Worse yet, the courts choose which related ideas are too closely related, or too far related, with no clear legislation to indicate how close is too close.
Apparently, a song with three notes in common is too much commonality for one judge in the US; in Canada, re-arranging a mobile because it was unsafe was a threat to an artist's legally protected repuation. The borders for what is legal and not legal are made up on the fly, because the limits copyright places on expressing ideas fly in the face of the natural limits of freedom of speech.
We become richer, intellectually, as a society when creators are forced to think beyond what's already been done, to create their own expression of common cultural ideas
Perhaps so. On the other hand, we become poorer, intellectually, as a society when creators are forced to reinvent the wheel, poorly, and to limit their own freedom of expression to support common cultural ideas.
What's more, society, as a whole, doesn't want drastic change. They want incremental variations on known themes. Witness the box office if you don't believe me: the vast majority of works at the box office are remakes of books, plays, or other movies. That's what people want. As for books, authors do the writing up front, then look to see if they can get paid after the work is done. The incentive program is pretty backwards: they don't know if they'll make a cent off their work, yet they write anyway. Somehow, I don't think it's the 70 years of monopolistic protection after they are dead that's inspiring them to write more books; I think they just like writing stuff.
For example, no one is paying me to write slashdot postings, and yet, here I am, giving away free copies of a copyrighted work to the public to read! Financial incentives is the least of reasons w