4 ms·

I think the open question is whether software is in the realm of patents or of copyrights. It's not unreasonable to suggest the former, since software is kind

I think the open question is whether software is in the realm of patents or of copyrights. It's not unreasonable to suggest the former, since software is kind of like a widget that does stuff, except virtualizing the "widget" part to run on a generic widget of sorts. Copyrights traditionally applied to works that you would consider "artistic" rather than "inventions." What you're suggesting, about a minimal work, is litigated endlessly with respect to music copyrights (since a lot of pop music is very similar, arguments about plagiarism get crazy), but is part of the law already.

brookst 4y ago
Aren’t dry, non-fiction books copyrightable? I don’t think “creative” necessarily means “artistic”, just making something where there was nothing. It’s hard for me to see a software program as a whole as uncreative in the same way logarithm tables are. I agree it’s a complex are with no easy answer. But I really think that software, like words and notes and numbers, scales from the generic and unprotectable to the highly creative and protectable. I guess I’m saying we shouldn’t invalidate copyright based on the medium being software, any more than we would for the medium being audio.
- randombits0 4y ago
  The expression can be as dry as a desert. Is the result an act of creativity? The bar is pretty low. Say you had a book that listed the price of eggs over 100 years. You introduced each chapter, perhaps describing the egg market at the time, etc. The book is copyrightable though lists of egg prices aren’t. Maps are another fun case for copyright.
randombits0 4y ago
It’s neither, it doesn’t fit. Chip masks are another whole branch of IP law. As strange as it sounds, they are a bit like two sides of the same coin.
theGnuMe 4y ago
Software alone is not patentable. You get around that by patenting a system.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  That is the state of the law today, where software gets copyrighted and can't be patented, but the debate about this is more about what ought to be the case.
  - theGnuMe 4y ago
    Good luck changing it!

brookst 4y ago

Aren’t dry, non-fiction books copyrightable? I don’t think “creative” necessarily means “artistic”, just making something where there was nothing. It’s hard for me to see a software program as a whole as uncreative in the same way logarithm tables are. I agree it’s a complex are with no easy answer. But I really think that software, like words and notes and numbers, scales from the generic and unprotectable to the highly creative and protectable. I guess I’m saying we shouldn’t invalidate copyright based on the medium being software, any more than we would for the medium being audio.

randombits0 4y ago
The expression can be as dry as a desert. Is the result an act of creativity? The bar is pretty low. Say you had a book that listed the price of eggs over 100 years. You introduced each chapter, perhaps describing the egg market at the time, etc. The book is copyrightable though lists of egg prices aren’t. Maps are another fun case for copyright.

randombits0 4y ago

It’s neither, it doesn’t fit. Chip masks are another whole branch of IP law. As strange as it sounds, they are a bit like two sides of the same coin.

theGnuMe 4y ago

Software alone is not patentable. You get around that by patenting a system.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
That is the state of the law today, where software gets copyrighted and can't be patented, but the debate about this is more about what ought to be the case.
- theGnuMe 4y ago
  Good luck changing it!