|
| Authored by: artp on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 11:30 PM EDT |
They already have everything they could wish for with
copyright. Why bother?
A friend of mine went to work for Disney after graduating
from engineering college. He was going to work on all the
attractions in Disneyland. It sounded like a great job, and
I'm sure there were some patentable ideas developed.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 05:35 AM EDT |
Copyright does not prevent reverse engineering. Executable code can be read by
humans, given the right skill and some tools. Your opinion that software is not
eligible for copyright protection but is better served by patents seems
unsupported by facts, and looks to me like an attempt to invalidate the GPL and
make patent attacks on Linux and Android easier and more destructive. You also
deliberately lump together copyright and patents under the name "IP"
when it serves to confuse, but then you treat them as separate things when you
try to argue against copyright.
A step up from the OP argument "sharing is stealing", but we are not
impressed.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 10:04 AM EDT |
if software in the form of object code were covered exclusively
by patents rather than copyrights, you wouldn't have to fear five or even six
figure statutory penalities
Nope... you just have to fear a
starting defense cost in the 7 figure1 category to defend against a
patent so generically defined that it can be applied against products sold in
the market 2 decades prior.
1) It's currently estimated
that the average defense cost of a single patent before entering trial is $2
Million.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
