|Authored by: mbouckaert on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 03:05 PM EST|
|IMHO. framing the debate solely in terms of Patents and |
Copyright is already a band-aid. These two were imagined
before technology did create the kind of complexity we see
in software, or the type of confusion we see from "similar"
products that do differ in pretty important ways (I am
thinking about physical stuff, and of ripples of things like
the infamous Soviet Inch here.)
Like: It sounds logical that something as intricate and
complex as Java SE should somehow be protected from slavish
imitation; it also sounds obvious that neither Patents nor
Copyrights fit the need.
Like: It sounds proper to protect a "lean" approach to
design, à la Apple/Braun; but how (and how much) can one
protect the *absence* of features, using the existing Patent
/ Copyright / Trade dress tools?
And in all cases boundaries need be defined between form,
process, ideas, related ideas, "de minimis" stuff (IANAL, so
a question here: "de minimis" appears not to apply to
I would expect "institutions of higher learning" to wrestle
with all of that and digest before any legislative branch is
involved. Time frame in decades. I am probably looking at
all the wrong places, but is there anything like that
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]