4 ms·
> (1) copyright as the IP protection for software, with cleaned up laws and procedures about "insignificant changes" and "derivative works" -- or -- I'd go wit
by nordsieck 4y ago
> (1) copyright as the IP protection for software, with cleaned up laws and procedures about "insignificant changes" and "derivative works" -- or --
I'd go with this. But ideally with a 10-20 year limit on copyright[1].
I do think that there are some software patents (RSA, for example) that seem worthwhile. But the system as a whole seems like it does more harm than good.
---
1. My ideal proposal for copyright is exponentially increasing fees (after a short initial grace period) for a linearly increasing time period. But that seems like several bridges too far.
- B1FF_PSUVM 4y agoIP paying property taxes would be nice. Could even let owners set the value, if it were coupled to licensing fees etc.
- AlbertCory 4y agoNote that there are maintenance fees for patents, which are non-trivial. they're every 4 years, though.
- AlbertCory 4y agothanks. please note that whatever a lawyer says about copyright law now is usually limited to what the courts have said plus the latest statutes and what judges are likely to rule. The topic for today is harder: it's what should copyright law for software say? We're assuming that Congress does its job for once. The lawyers will never do it. Don't like it that Disney had a forever copyright on Mickey Mouse? Me neither, but that's because copyright law is one-size-fits-all. The proposal is a carve-out where software law is different than literary. So property taxes or shorter terms are definitely on point. "Which Unix is better" is not.