On 26 Nov, 16:14, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:
"Dave" wrote in ...
It's a shame there is not a law that allows software to be used freely after
x years of no new updates.

Well, there -- sort of -- is, it's just that "x" is something like 30 years.
Obviously one could argue endlessly about what that time period should be...

I don't think you'd want to make it, say, 5 or even 10 years -- there's often
still plenty of value left in software that old; whoever owns it will often
decide to sell the entire package to someone else if they haven't had the
means or desire to maintain it for that long. (Look at Commodore -- the name
is still worth millions today even though the "real" Commodore declared
bankruptcy in 1994...)

Why is there a difference with respect to standard patents and
computor programs?
After 20 years it is open season of new patent designs whereas a
programmer doesn't even
declare his source code while holding it for life.Copyright laws in no
way encourage
advancement in science for the population as a whole, it only
encourages greed.
Copyrighting as it is presently framed is just a money pit for
eternity at the
public's expense, therefore it is understandable the law is being
ignored until it is
redrawn along the same lines as patents. Mathematics could be next in
line for copyright
where the money pit could last for centuries and dom civilization
itself!
Best regards
Art
Art

art wrote:


Why is there a difference with respect to standard patents and
computor programs?

Because all computer progams are covered by copyright, and in the US and
some other countries are also covered by patents.

The US Entertainment industry has continually, and successfully lobbied your
government officials to vastly increase the term, or length of copyright
from 14 years to, I think 70 years after the author's death.

In much, even most, of the world, it is not possible to patent computer
software per se. Patenting is not used for it's original intention,
either - to spread knowledge about new inventions while allowing the
inventor to be compensated for a limited period of time but instead to find
ways to block your competitors from having this feature, or that.

After 20 years it is open season of new patent designs whereas a
programmer doesn't even
declare his source code while holding it for life.Copyright laws in no
way encourage
advancement in science for the population as a whole, it only
encourages greed.
Copyrighting as it is presently framed is just a money pit for
eternity at the
public's expense, therefore it is understandable the law is being
ignored until it is
redrawn along the same lines as patents. Mathematics could be next in
line for copyright
where the money pit could last for centuries and dom civilization
itself!

You raise a lot of good points, Art. Copyrighting was also intended as a way
to allow authors or creators to have the exclusive right to benefit from
their work, but it was also intended that the work would go into the public
domain after a short period of time - initially 14 years, then 28, then 56,
now life of the author + 70 years in the US.

The present policy of ever extending copyright has not only kept a lot of
material from public view, it has prevented many preservations of old,
abandoned (orphan) works in film and audio formats. Worse, it has
completely discounted the public interest in seeing works becoming
available in the public domain.

Bob, VE7HS

Robert Smts wrote:
art wrote:

Why is there a difference with respect to standard patents and
computor programs?

Because all computer progams are covered by copyright, and in the US and
some other countries are also covered by patents.

The US Entertainment industry has continually, and successfully lobbied your
government officials to vastly increase the term, or length of copyright
from 14 years to, I think 70 years after the author's death.

In much, even most, of the world, it is not possible to patent computer
software per se. Patenting is not used for it's original intention,
either - to spread knowledge about new inventions while allowing the
inventor to be compensated for a limited period of time but instead to find
ways to block your competitors from having this feature, or that.

After 20 years it is open season of new patent designs whereas a
programmer doesn't even
declare his source code while holding it for life.Copyright laws in no
way encourage
advancement in science for the population as a whole, it only
encourages greed.
Copyrighting as it is presently framed is just a money pit for
eternity at the
public's expense, therefore it is understandable the law is being
ignored until it is
redrawn along the same lines as patents. Mathematics could be next in
line for copyright
where the money pit could last for centuries and dom civilization
itself!

You raise a lot of good points, Art. Copyrighting was also intended as a way
to allow authors or creators to have the exclusive right to benefit from
their work, but it was also intended that the work would go into the public
domain after a short period of time - initially 14 years, then 28, then 56,
now life of the author + 70 years in the US.

The present policy of ever extending copyright has not only kept a lot of
material from public view, it has prevented many preservations of old,
abandoned (orphan) works in film and audio formats. Worse, it has
completely discounted the public interest in seeing works becoming
available in the public domain.

Bob, VE7HS


Robert:

Right on. Your summary reads like poetry, however tragic ...

Regards,
JS