Freedoms?

[nopycckn]

I haven't been reading too long on this subject. I know very little about intellectual property rights, copyright, what kinds of patents companies/people might have on certain software. Is there some kind of run-down on do's and don'ts with software? For example, flash viewers, the open java software, etc. I don't understand what you can and can't do, and I haven't seen a succinct description of what you can/can't do or what people do/don't do. It confuses me a little that it seems like everything is so protected, but there are all these versions of software that use all this software in some way, and none of them conflict in any way with laws.

[Crimsonfire]

The legality of this is a bizarre and confusing land alright. Most countries have either no laws or very bad laws concerning software and elctronic patentage. I'm not exactly knowledgable on the subject but I've heard some strange things.

Apparently the incrementing progress bar that you see in a typical installer program is copyrighted or patented so every single program that uses it is technically in breach of patent/copyright law. I'll try find a reference for that. I remember reading it thinking it was hilarious.

[Rubberman]

IMHO, all current intellectual property laws are so completely broken and unrelated to reality that it is impossible to avoid "infringing" someone's so-called rights simply by walking down the street. It is also causing serious problems with staring up a new company because so many venture capital firms are getting really gun-shy, so to speak, due to all the absure lawsuits that are going on these days. I can't say I really blame them, though it is making it very difficult to get startup capital for new ventures. In any case, unless this situation is rectified in a somewhat more rational manner than it exists today, the ability to innovate and move society forward in the technological arena is going to be extremely restricted.

[jmadero]

the biggest issue that we face is that laws aren't consistent at all when it comes to software vs other things. Here's a for instance:

Microsoft sues OpenOffice for patent infringement for making their product compatible with MS Office (which I'm sure takes reverse engineering which is against the law in the US if the product isn't open source)

This is essentially like Ford being able to sue Toyota for making a motor that uses gasoline because Ford was around before and they could have patented the gasoline engine.

The weird thing is that Ford isn't allowed to do that, and everyone drives around in cars that uses gasoline, despite the fact that the original engines I'm sure were "reverse engineered" in the sense that they were taken apart and analyzed piece by piece (I'm sure this still happens). Yet when it comes to software our legal system fails to see the similarities and allow companies to get away with monopolozing the market. The best thing we can do is push for our legislative branch to fix the issues.

On a side note. Everyone should follow the SF Court case for Real Player....

the issue: Media companies are saying we don't have right to backup our OWN DVD's, instead they expect us to buy the DVD PLUS buy their electronic version if available. I am a strong opponent to pirating but this is insane, if I buy a DVD I should be able to put it in my media center box and watch it wherever I want in the house without having the physical DVD out of its case....

[kahlil88]

Software patents are one of the biggest evils to plague this world. Patents in general totally suck because they stifle innovation and create monopolies, but they're especially bad in the software world because software evolves at a much higher rate than other patentable things (engines for instance). Organizations like the FSF have been fighting against them for years, and something really needs to be done soon since Microsoft has been making patent threats against the free software community in recent years.

[techieMoe]

I haven't been reading too long on this subject. I know very little about intellectual property rights, copyright, what kinds of patents companies/people might have on certain software. Is there some kind of run-down on do's and don'ts with software? For example, flash viewers, the open java software, etc. I don't understand what you can and can't do, and I haven't seen a succinct description of what you can/can't do or what people do/don't do. It confuses me a little that it seems like everything is so protected, but there are all these versions of software that use all this software in some way, and none of them conflict in any way with laws.

I can't speak to the rest of it, but when it comes to the open Java software (such as the GPL-licensed implementations of the Java Virtual Machine and libraries) you can do the same things with those as you can any other GPL software. That is: view, modify, and redistribute as much as you like.

[Rubberman]

Microsoft sues OpenOffice for patent infringement for making their product compatible with MS Office (which I'm sure takes reverse engineering which is against the law in the US if the product isn't open source)

Actually, reverse engineering (clean-room protocols) isn't illegal. However, there is still the need to get a license for patents that might be infringed. Just because someone is willing to license their patents (required by law), it doesn't mean that they are willing to divulge source code, etc. That's where clean-room reverse engineering comes into play, and how one can duplicate the functionality of another system without stealing their property. This is how a lot of plug-compatible mainframe vendors such as Hitachi, were able to duplicate IBM mainframes so well that any object code, not just source code, written for the IBM systems could run without modification on their systems. Indeed, IBM did sue them, but lost because there was no theft of the code from IBM. Even so, I do believe that Hitachi and others had to pay IBM to license some of their patents - most likely hardware-related ones since when this happened I don't think software was patentable, or at least nobody thought it was.

[jmadero]

I'd have to say that patents are just as vital for creativity as open source is. I think that it should be similar to medicine where the patent runs out after X years (maybe 3-5) and then needs to be opened. Unfortunately our society runs on money and a lot of people wouldn't be putting so much effort into making things without money incentive (lack of open source programmers is proof of this, there are a lot of them...but not nearly enough). So I'd say, patent with limitations is best

[Rubberman]

Unfortunately, patents last for 17 years (or at least they used to). That means that a software patent issued today would not expire until 2026. That's about 10,000 years in computer/internet time...