Jump to content

Talk:Software law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV

[edit]

No references. Completely subjective phrases like "draconian pretrial seizure" and "Copyrights on command languages enforce gratuitous incompatibility, close opportunities for competition, and stifle incremental improvements."

This has been up for a long time and it's bad. PJ Rey (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not very neutral, is it? Qaz 04:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sadly not. You should read FOLDOC's article on software patents... Stewart Adcock 05:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I just removed this text:
A patent normally covers the design of something with a function such as a machine or process. Copyright restricts the right to make and distribute copies of something written or recorded, such as a song or a book of recipes. Software has both these aspects - it embodies functional design in the algorithms and data structures it uses and it could also be considered as a recording which can be copied and "performed" (run).
"Look and feel" lawsuits attempt to monopolize well-known command languages; some have succeeded. Copyrights on command languages enforce gratuitous incompatibility, close opportunities for competition, and stifle incremental improvements.
Software patents are even more dangerous; they make every design decision in the development of a program carry a risk of a lawsuit, with draconian pretrial seizure. It is difficult and expensive to find out whether the techniques you consider using are patented; it is impossible to find out whether they will be patented in the future.
The proper use of copyright is to prevent software piracy - unauthorised duplication of software. This is completely different from copying the idea behind the program in the same way that photocopying a book differs from writing another book on the same subject.
--Pnm (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]