Software Should Not Be Copyrighted -- Lawsuit

Dom · Dec 14, 2004, 11:58 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Computer software should not be protected by copyright laws designed for music, literature and other creative works, according to a lawsuit filed in a U.S. court in San Francisco.

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.

The case seeks to clarify which laws the $100 billion U.S. software industry uses to protect its products. Currently, software makers like Microsoft Corp. use both copyright and patent laws to protect their creations, as well as "clickwrap" agreements that stipulate terms of use.

An official with a software-industry trade group said not every software product is protected by patents.

"If you eliminated the ability to sue somebody for copyright infringement, you would eviscerate our ability to go against pirates," said Emory Simon, counselor for the Business Software Alliance, which estimates that U.S. businesses lost $6.5 billion last year to piracy.

[Read More]

_____________________
Source: Reuters

pr0digal jenius · Dec 14, 2004, 12:26 PM

I don't see this getting very far....

Warpy · Dec 14, 2004, 01:38 PM

I never knew software was copyrighted

Matth · Dec 14, 2004, 06:47 PM

In other places, there is a fight to prevent the increasing adoption of software patents.

At least copyright requires it to be proven to be substantially copied or derived from, rather than just using the same basic principles (like all these damn stupid patents for hyperlinking, embedding and other things).

Copyright is the most logical protection for what is, at least at the source level, a written work.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Dec 15, 2004, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funky Monkey

I never knew software was copyrighted

What software

?

(click, click, click, wistle)

runs away

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0digal jenius

I don't see this getting very far....

I agree

Dec 14, 2004, 11:58 AM	#1
Dom DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,940 Rep Power: 0	Software Should Not Be Copyrighted -- Lawsuit WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Computer software should not be protected by copyright laws designed for music, literature and other creative works, according to a lawsuit filed in a U.S. court in San Francisco. 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. The case seeks to clarify which laws the $100 billion U.S. software industry uses to protect its products. Currently, software makers like Microsoft Corp. use both copyright and patent laws to protect their creations, as well as "clickwrap" agreements that stipulate terms of use. An official with a software-industry trade group said not every software product is protected by patents. "If you eliminated the ability to sue somebody for copyright infringement, you would eviscerate our ability to go against pirates," said Emory Simon, counselor for the Business Software Alliance, which estimates that U.S. businesses lost $6.5 billion last year to piracy. [Read More] _____________________ Source: Reuters

Dec 14, 2004, 01:38 PM	#3
Warpy DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 2,761 Rep Power: 0	I never knew software was copyrighted __________________ The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Dec 14, 2004, 12:26 PM	#2
pr0digal jenius Delete Me Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 14,648 Rep Power: 0	I don't see this getting very far....

Dec 14, 2004, 06:47 PM	#4
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,411 Rep Power: 91 System Specs	In other places, there is a fight to prevent the increasing adoption of software patents. At least copyright requires it to be proven to be substantially copied or derived from, rather than just using the same basic principles (like all these damn stupid patents for hyperlinking, embedding and other things). Copyright is the most logical protection for what is, at least at the source level, a written work.