On 11/12/98, Kerry L. Konrad <k_konrad[_at_]stblaw.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps Dan Burk could explain further exactly how copyright in
> computer programs prevents other people from learning from those
> programs, or improving upon them, in any way other than selling a
> program containing elements copied from them?
"Selling a program containing elements copied from them," is a perfectly adequate explanation, especially if the elements in question are non-literal. There is also the little problem of making a copy to decompile the program.
> How about Sega v. Accolade, for starters?
How about it? Sega permits incidental copying in order to extract public domain elements. It does not permit copying in order to extract protected elements.
> As for the point that programs lose their value in a few months, if
> that were so, why do we have the Y2K problem?
Hm. I don't suppose it could have something to do with the First Sale doctrine, could it?
> Maybe the latest rev of a packaged software product has a marketing
> life of less than a year, but that's not very meaningful --
It is extremely meaningful. It means, among other things, that if software developers are going to recover their costs, it needs to happen within about 12 months after release. Why protection should extend another 69 years is a mystery.
> I'd bet that the code base for any current Microsoft Office product,
> for example, has code going back to 1980-something. Certainly some
> of the key routines in Lotus Notes are ten years old.
Yes -- and is there any reason that they shouldn't have entered the public domain 8 or 9 years ago?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:33 GMT