At 07:45 AM 9/9/98 -0700, you wrote:
>I think the idea that copyright law instead of patent law
As a software developer, I tend to disagree. Copyrights exist to protect
the expression of an idea, and patents exist to protect the actual thing.
Consider an senario that actually happened a few years ago.
>should protect an operating system is wrong. A operating
>system is a key technology without which, all the software
>written for that operating system won't run.
Compton's Multimedia applied for a software patent on a system for search
and retrieval of multimedia information. Multimedia information, in the
context of the patent, as the electronic form of text, graphics, and
photographic images. The patent, read one way, protected only the exact
implementation of Compton's Multimedia Encyclpoedia. Read another way, it
protected any program which stored and searched for information in digital
form, the only form computers understand!
If IBM had patented the Operating System (it invented it in the 1950's)
then there would only be the IBM OS. If WordStar had patented the use of
computers as word-processing systems, there would be (God forbid) only
WordStar.
>And if patent law applied, then Microsoft would have to
This is true now. In order to register a copyright with the government,
>publish their technical information (source code) and their
>rights to the patent would eventually expire.
As someone who makes a living writing software, I think software patents are Evil. If you are first to write something, then the way to maintain your viability is to constantly improve your product. Software patents take that away: I can write turn out a poor product with impunity, the patent ensures that I have no competition.