The issue at hand is not copyright, but patents. I don't think anyone is arguing that software is not copyright protected, but that the "process" of the software itself is patentable.... which is pretty shady.
Your computer shop is SOL. Copying software is as much copyright infringement as copying a hardback novel.
Although I have 2 months to go before I enroll in law school, IANAL (at the present moment) but I believe the distinction that AT&T is trying to make is that although the source code is not patentable, the resulting process originating from the source code is. Thus, I guess what they're trying to say that although source code (blueprint) is not patentable, the resulting software product (the widget) is.
Although in AT&T's case, if Microsoft has licensed the speech recognition algorithm and while algorithm's are not patentable, is the resulting process of the algorithm patentable if it's not a software product, but merely a part of a software product? So if I let you use the blueprints to spork X and you use it to build widget Y, and widget Y is patentable, is spork X (which cannot function alone) also a patented product?
Another issue that's raised is was the blueprint or the widget sent over? If Microsoft's golden disk contained only source code which was then compiled in another country, then it would probably (under the assumption that software is patentable, but source code is not) be outside US jurisdiction since the copyrighted widget is being created outside of the country. But if Microsoft sent over a copy of the compiled software to be physically duplicated, then they are sending over the Widget, which would be a patent violation, assuming that the widget itself was patented.
But of course, even if the Widget is patented, that still leaves open the previous question (is spork X, a part of widget Y) patentable?
Whatever the supreme court decides, I doubt it will affect the question of whether software as a whole is patentable but if components of that software can hold their own patents. It really could go either way.
From my experience, mac hardware is a proprietary piece of shit. My girlfriend had a 1.5 year old ibook G4. Her hard drive was failing so I figured, "just back up what you need on your ipod and I'll replace the hard drive and install OSX again." I thought it would be a few screws off the bottom panel (like 95% of other laptops), unplugging of the hard drive and plugging in of a new one.
But holy shit, after looking at directions online, you have to take apart the entire goddamn chasis just to get at the hard drive. (http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Mac/iBook-G4-12-Inch/ Hard-Drive-Replacement)
We took it to Fry's and had them do it for $150. It took a week because their regular techs wouldn't touch the ibook and we had to wait for their "Apple Specialist" to come in (which he only did once a week). I sold the goddamn thing on ebay after it was fixed and built her a windows box with a 19" widescreen monitor with the money.
This is why Macbooks only come with a 3 month warranty. They know the lifespan of an average component is 1 year. Go figure that Consumer Reports doesn't recommend extended warranty for any laptop except an apple one.
Slashdot Mirror
Music is copyrighted, not patented.
The issue at hand is not copyright, but patents. I don't think anyone is arguing that software is not copyright protected, but that the "process" of the software itself is patentable.... which is pretty shady. Your computer shop is SOL. Copying software is as much copyright infringement as copying a hardback novel.
Although I have 2 months to go before I enroll in law school, IANAL (at the present moment) but I believe the distinction that AT&T is trying to make is that although the source code is not patentable, the resulting process originating from the source code is. Thus, I guess what they're trying to say that although source code (blueprint) is not patentable, the resulting software product (the widget) is. Although in AT&T's case, if Microsoft has licensed the speech recognition algorithm and while algorithm's are not patentable, is the resulting process of the algorithm patentable if it's not a software product, but merely a part of a software product? So if I let you use the blueprints to spork X and you use it to build widget Y, and widget Y is patentable, is spork X (which cannot function alone) also a patented product? Another issue that's raised is was the blueprint or the widget sent over? If Microsoft's golden disk contained only source code which was then compiled in another country, then it would probably (under the assumption that software is patentable, but source code is not) be outside US jurisdiction since the copyrighted widget is being created outside of the country. But if Microsoft sent over a copy of the compiled software to be physically duplicated, then they are sending over the Widget, which would be a patent violation, assuming that the widget itself was patented. But of course, even if the Widget is patented, that still leaves open the previous question (is spork X, a part of widget Y) patentable? Whatever the supreme court decides, I doubt it will affect the question of whether software as a whole is patentable but if components of that software can hold their own patents. It really could go either way.
From my experience, mac hardware is a proprietary piece of shit. My girlfriend had a 1.5 year old ibook G4. Her hard drive was failing so I figured, "just back up what you need on your ipod and I'll replace the hard drive and install OSX again." I thought it would be a few screws off the bottom panel (like 95% of other laptops), unplugging of the hard drive and plugging in of a new one. But holy shit, after looking at directions online, you have to take apart the entire goddamn chasis just to get at the hard drive. (http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Mac/iBook-G4-12-Inch/ Hard-Drive-Replacement)
We took it to Fry's and had them do it for $150. It took a week because their regular techs wouldn't touch the ibook and we had to wait for their "Apple Specialist" to come in (which he only did once a week). I sold the goddamn thing on ebay after it was fixed and built her a windows box with a 19" widescreen monitor with the money.
This is why Macbooks only come with a 3 month warranty. They know the lifespan of an average component is 1 year. Go figure that Consumer Reports doesn't recommend extended warranty for any laptop except an apple one.