Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Serge Skorokhodov (216716244)
Date : Tue Aug 30 2005 08:00 pm

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> I have no difficulty thinking of cases in which it is
> appropriate.  But is there any point rehearsing the case for
> copyright and patents here? Most people agree that there are

Most people? I doubt that major media companies and software
publishers comprise the majority of people:)

> good reasons for having them, even if many disagree on the
> extent and what they should be applied to. Patents, for
> example, may work better on chemical processes than on 
> software or business systems.  Copyright is less of a problem
> because it applies to fields in which there are effectively
> infinitely many routes to achieve a given effect.
> 
> First copyright law is generally said to be the Statute of
> Anne, 1710.

Do you mean the statute US book publishers of the time infringe
in any possible way? :)

>> and it's not the case outside the US even nowdays (depends
>> on the specific country though:). The real problem that
>> (let's call it so) the freedom of knowledge threatens to
>> specific buiseness schemas. That's simple. And those who
>> benefit from existing buiseness schemas just attempt to
>> maintain their profits at the expence of the rights people
>> enjoy for ages. Do you repsect those who defends their
>> profits at the expence of other's natural rights? Or do you
>> defend your personal profits and just don't mind anybody
>> else's rights? :)
> 
> What you claim as natural rights, I don't see as such.
> 

That means you consider the rights human kind has have for
thousands of years as unnatural? What happened in the recent
dozen of years then?

> 
>> It's definetaly both illigal and immoral to obtain unlicened
>>  copies of copyrighted material. Still we encounter pricing
>> and fair use issues but it is a different story... :)
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're arguing about if you think it's
> immoral. Software patents only?
> 

Not only. I consider immoral and detrimental any copyright or
patents that last more that 20 years. Actually, I believe that
this term must be less for most technological advancements nowadays.

Then I consider both immoral and detrimental any restrictions of
studying (reverse ingeneering, disassembling etc.) software.

I do believe that the US intellectual property law is aimed
exclusevely on preventing fair competition.

I may be mistaken, but I remember that Andy Grove once said that
he is surprised with all current litigations on intellectual
property. He said that when he was younger, he could hardly think
of sueing somebody on legal right on an invention. He was always
so busy inventing something new... :)

-- 
Serge

.