Talk:Software law

NPOV
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)

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)