[Patents] more inflammatory speeches from Greg

[dmarti@zgp.org (Don Marti)]

begin PILCH Hartmut quotation of Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 06:23:17AM +0100:

> Copyright explicitely exempts general ideas of all kinds, including
> processes and methods for writing a novel etc.  Likewise, it extends to
> individual creation of all kinds, including that of software.

Anyone read the recent order in the case of Softman v. Adobe?  

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/bb61c530eab0911c882567cf005ac6f9/574aa79ff518021188256aed006ea2dc/$FILE/CV00-04161DDP.pdf

The judge is definitely on the "software should be copyrighted"
side, and takes away the enforceability of certain license terms
on the grounds that copyright law already does it.

I'm still interested in Greg's vision of a world with software
patents but not software copyrights.  Let's say you do a word
processor with no new patentable ideas in it, just implementations
of the same old stuff everyone else has put in word processors
for years.  You put ypur program under a strict end-user license,
but someone in another country makes a million copies and sells
them on CD for $2.

Would any equivalent of today's "criminal copyright infringement"
apply?  Or would the software company have to bring an international
_civil_ suit for license violation?

-- 
Don Marti          What do we want?  Free Dmitry!  When do we want it?  Now!
http://zgp.org/~dmarti
dmarti@zgp.org                                  Free the web, burn all GIFs.
KG6INA                                               http://burnallgifs.org/