Re: thought for the week

On Tue, Jul 27, 1999, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Peter D. Junger <junger[_at_]samsara.law.cwru.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Limiting my remarks to software, I agree that getting rid of coyright
> > for computer programs would reduce investment (and return on investment)
> > drastically, and that, in consequence, Microsoft would no longer present
> > an anti-trust problem. On the other hand, considering the successs of
> > the free/open software movements, it is my opinion that there would be
> > no appreciable reduction in the quantity [except for a drastic reduction
> > in the number of incompatible programs arising from efforts at product
> > differentiation] of programs and that the quality of programs would be
> > greatly improved.
> >
> > Notice that RedHat in its efforts to turn a five billion dollar business
> > into a five hundred million dollar business is investing considerable
> > money in supporting programmers who are creating free/open software.
> >
> > It isn't the copyright regime that is encouraging those efforts.
> >
> > And it wasn't the copyright regime that was responsible for the creation
> > of Linux, Apache, Sendmail (and Qmail), Bind, TCP/IP, C, Unix, Perl,
> > Python, or the World Wide Web.
>
> Of course there is an alternative to individual copyright
> ownership in the ancient practice of patronage. Whoever is
> rich enough to keep an author can own his/her works -- and
> decide to give them away.
>
> - Employees of the Federal government for instance
> have no copyright whatsoever.
> - Employees of Microsoft have no claim on copyrights
> that belong to their employer / patron.
> - Other authors may negotiate and keep their copyrights.
>
> Is it not good to have options that serve a diversity of talents
> and life styles?

I think Mr. Henderson overstates the case a bit.

He says:
> - Employees of the Federal government for instance
> have no copyright whatsoever.

There is, by statute, no copyright in works of the U.S. Government. But that's not the same thing as saying that a government employee can hold "no copyright whatsoever". Many government employees are also the proud owners of copyrights in works of their own that are not works of the U.S. Government.

He also says:
> - Employees of Microsoft have no claim on copyrights
> that belong to their employer / patron.

That's unremarkable. No employees of any company have a claim on copyrights "that belong to their employer". By the same token, no employers have any claim on copyrights that belong to their employees. The purpose of the Work Made For Hire doctrine, and of employment contracts such as those entered into at Microsoft, is to determine which is which.

Bob

Robert C. Cumbow
> Graham & Dunn, P.C.
> 1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
> Seattle, Washington 98101-2390
> Phone: 206-340-9619
> Fax: 206-340-9599
> E-mail: rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
> Website: http://www.grahamdunn.com/
>
Received on Wed Jul 28 1999 - 15:31:31 GMT