Re: [fsl-discuss] Re: [Patents] The politics of software over-protection -- moving forward..

[Roland Orre <orre@nada.kth.se>]

Now I know what the Whelan case means and I also see the problem.

On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 19:10, Roland Orre wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 18:59, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> <snip>
> > For thirty years, courts in the US have diligently tried to fit 
> > software into copyright, with no success (the biggest failure being
> > Whelan) - it is hard to find a logic to do so. <snip>
> 
> Can you please give a reference to Whelan, I'm not familiar to this!
> Roland Orre

I'm sorry I bothered so many with my question about a reference to
Whelan. I hadn't specified my google good enough. When I asked
for "whelan software copyright" the answer was clear. e.g.
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/articles/int-prop/software-copyright.html

Basically, what is the problem is Jaslow's thought that that the "idea"
or the behaviour of the program was possible to copyright, but this is
wrong. You can copyright a specific pattern but not the algorithms in
them selves, as little as you can patent them.

It's perfectly alright to "reinvent" or recode a specific program
behaviour in another language. You can copyright the source code
or a specific binary, but not the "idea" of a program. To perform
so called reverse engineering for instance is perfectly all right.
If this is possible to do, then the original code was not "clever
enough" from my point of view.

So, Mr Aharonian, please give us an answer how protecting an idea,
expressable in logics, by purchased monopoly, can enhance the technical
development!

About software patents: I don't agree with rms that software can be
patentable. As I have understood, rms (nowadays) has a similar view as
Greg that obvious software ideas should not be patentable, but I
consider no software to be patentable. Software should be possible to
copyright but a reimplementation in another language should not infringe
the copyright.

Of course this view has consequences: it implies that it would be
perfectly all right for M$ to steal the [ref Ballmer] "viral" GPL
programs and reimplement them in C# for instance. This feels wrong,
but it's less bad than having the "idea" of a GPL program
copyrighted or patented.

        Roland Orre