Re: [Patents] French high level civil servant warns about spwat danger

[Andrew Rendle <andrew@andrewr.co.uk>]

Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> David Glaude asks:
>
>
> > I don't like to argue with you, but what is illogic about software 
> > copyright?
>
>
> Software is all useful process, method, structure, idea and applied
> mathematics. The TRIPS treaty and WIPO treaties, which both Americans
> and Europeans have signed, EXPLICITLY rules out copyright for process,
> method, structure, idea and mathematics.  These treaties rule out
> copyright protection for process, method, structure, idea and
> mathematics because the protection of such has long been handled by the
> patent system.  It was an American idiocy to introduce software copyright
> to the world.  Software is just one of the branches of physics.  

Why do you say that?  Hardware maybe is a branch of physics, but 
software is, imho, the application of discrete mathematics.

> Like
> all of the other branches of physics, protection of software inventions
> belongs in the patent world as being a work of applied science.
>
>
> > My code is my way of expressing myself (and should be protected as 
> > freedom of speach).
>
>     Freedom of speech which trumps copyright?  

Absolute freedom of speech would trump copyright.  And also, would trump 
anti-defamation laws, the oath/affirmation that you must take when 
giving evidence in court, and (arguably) patents.  Fortunatly, nowhere 
has complete freedom of speech (shouting 'fire!' in a crowded [and 
non-burning] theatre, being the classic example.)

> Then you are against both
> patents and copyrights.  Which I think is the belief of the majority of
> people on this list.  Besides, my new gene seqence is a way of expressing
> myself, my new blueprint for a mechanical device is a way of expressing
> myself.  Are you saying then that the protection of all of these things
> should not be with patents, but copyrights?

You have a copyright in the blueprints, or in an expression of a gene 
sequence.  The actual device that the blueprints are for may be 
patented, but that would not stop people making copies of the 
blueprints, which is restricted by the draughtsman's (or his employer's) 
copyright in them that restricts copying.  Imho, gene sequences should 
not be patentable, as they are not inventions, rather they are discoveries.

> > When I write code I deserve the same protection as an author writing a 
> > book (so I should use copyright like him).
>
>     Why?  Why not settle for the same protection as an inventor creating
> something similarly useful as your software?  How are you different in
> any substantial way from someone programming hardware designs, especially
> someone using hardware/software codesign tools?  What do you want 100+
> years of copyright protection for?  Talk about trying to obtain grossly
> excessive amounts of control.

That copyrights are far too long is not an argument against having 
copyrights, it is an argument for having shorter copyrights.  As usual, 
the "you're either with us or against us" idea is completly wrong.

Andrew