Copyright vs. Patent

[Shane Roach]

It has often confused me how computer programs in general seem to be protected by copyright, when in fact it would seem more proper to me for them to need to be patented. They are an invention in effect more than they are a creative expression.

Now there's a lot of overlap there. MS Word has a lot of written material in it that would deserve copyright protection in terms of help files and perhaps even the visual layout of the program. That might seem to be a complex thing to untangle, but when you get down to the code, I think it would actually be pretty clear. Basically, anything replaceable by more or less generic text or that displays on the screen graphically should be copyrighted, and anything else should be patented.

It may well be that that is how things are and I just don't know enough about it to realize.

What do you think is the correct attitude in todays atmosphere of "internet piracy" towards software liscensing and distribution, as well as entertainment copyrights that have gotten so militant that they try to prosecute kids for downloading music files?

 

[Athene]

Gosh how do I explain this, I don't think a programmer could patent his/her program unless they developed a unique progamming language. I'm only familiar with patent laws as they relate to the biotech industry, in biotech if a scientist invents a new drug then he/she can patent this new drug, if he/she used a unique method to produce this drug they can also patent the method, but if they used standard methods which are in the public domain they couldn't.

I'm assuming this is the same for computer programming, and that's why copyright makes more sense, because programmers aren't using their own original programming language but one that is in the public domain.

The entertainment is losing alot of money through piracy, for them it makes sense to prosecute. It is stealing, we'd expect the owner of a shop to prosecute a shoplifter and it's kind of the same principle.

 

[SimplyMe]

It has often confused me how computer programs in general seem to be protected by copyright, when in fact it would seem more proper to me for them to need to be patented. They are an invention in effect more than they are a creative expression.

Now there's a lot of overlap there. MS Word has a lot of written material in it that would deserve copyright protection in terms of help files and perhaps even the visual layout of the program. That might seem to be a complex thing to untangle, but when you get down to the code, I think it would actually be pretty clear. Basically, anything replaceable by more or less generic text or that displays on the screen graphically should be copyrighted, and anything else should be patented.

It may well be that that is how things are and I just don't know enough about it to realize.

What do you think is the correct attitude in todays atmosphere of "internet piracy" towards software liscensing and distribution, as well as entertainment copyrights that have gotten so militant that they try to prosecute kids for downloading music files?

Part of the problem with software, though, is what are you copyrighting? It's very rare for someone to come up with a completely new idea, most programs started as a way to automate a manual task. There have been some critical advances, such as the idea of "cutting and pasting" or linking spreadsheets, yet those ideas were never copyrighted or patented.

I thought it hypocritical when Lotus tried to sue for copyright violations of 1-2-3. While they did advance the art a degree, their main ideas were stolen from a product called Visio. Excel was built from the ideas of 1-2-3 and Quatrro. Word was built from WordPerfect, who once owned the word processing market but made a mistake when they didn't make a Windows version until after Windows became popular. Even Windows was borrowed, largely from Apple's Macintosh interface (Apple's lawsuits failed), though Apple stole their ideas from Xerox.

Lotus did successfully sue Borland over Quattro. Quattro worked differently from 1-2-3 but had a mode that allowed former 1-2-3 users to change the look or Quattro to a 1-2-3 style, complete with the same menus. Borland was forced to remove that mode from Quattro. I have mixed feelings about that, it does make sense that a person writing software should be able to own the way something looks and feels. OTOH, it would make society significantly harder. The reason Windows (and Macintosh) have been popular is in their ability to allow all programs to have a similar look and feel. Last, can you imagine if the car company that came up with the current car layout (instrument panel, steering wheel, layout of pedals) copyrighted that "feel" and every car had to be set up differently?

 

[Merlin]

Copyrights give more protection and over a longer time period.

Since the 'code' is in a written format, the written code is copyrighted.
It'll take an act of Congress to fix it.

 

[gwenmead]

Copyright is a weird thing.

I am a graphic & web designer by trade and I also create and sometimes sell fine art too, so copyright is a big issue in my industry. Who gets credited and paid for creating what is just a big can o'worms.

My understanding is that software falls under the broad umbrella of "intellectual property". When you buy software you aren't actually buying the code itself, you're buying a license to use a copy of it - which is essentially what copyright is, regardless of the product in question.

Every time I draw up a contract for a client, the copyright and usage clauses are the biggest bone of contention. Most people don't seem to understand how come they don't automatically own everything I produce for them, and how come they don't get to use it in whatever way they want. (This is called "work-for-hire", and it's one of the banes of the design industry.) As someone who makes a living off of my work, it's a major issue, so I understand how come the music industry, for instance, is so gung-ho about enforcing copyright. I don't want someone to take a logo I design, for instance, and make a gazillion bucks marketing a product with that logo without giving me a share as the logo's creatrix. (This is what royalties are for.)

At the same time, I'm also just fine that there's a Fair Use clause in the current copyright law, which basically says that people can have a limited number of copies of various things for personal or educational use. I mean, I want people to be able to see my stuff and learn about it, too.

Fair Use is why you can rip a CD of your favorite music to listen to in the car on the way to work and not get sued by BMI. Copyright prevents you from taking that CD and making a gazillion copies and selling those without giving BMI (or Columbia, or the artist) a cut.

Being in the industry I have a better grasp on the overall practices and stuff than many people do, but it's mostly practical, as it relates to what I do - and I'm nowhere near a copyright attorney in terms of knowing what the law says and where and what applies when.

Just for fits and giggles, here's a link to the US Copyright Office. And I'll shut up now, because I'm rambling.

 

[Shane Roach]

Well, the weird thing about programs is that they are all basically just arrangements of previously known logical and mathematical concepts, so I just don't see how it qualifies as "writing" per se.

But I sure appreciate all the input! I feel like I understand a little better at least.

 

[Maxwell511]

I think that there should be no such thing as copyrights or patents.

 

[ebia]

Copyrights give more protection and over a longer time period.

Since the 'code' is in a written format, the written code is copyrighted.
It'll take an act of Congress to fix it.

It would take a lot more than congress to change it - it's an area that can only work at all so long as there is a degree of international consensus (at least amongst 'Western' countries).

To try and answer the OP, patents apply to very specific, unique, ideas. Some aspects of software are patented in the US (last time I checked the only country to allow software patents). Patents have to be applied for, you have to prove that your idea is genuinely original, etc. Copyright applies to all intellectual property and therefore covers software by default, and doesn't need to be applied for. You don't even have to claim it - it exists by default. If I produce something similar to a copyrighted work by coincidene I don't have anything to worry about. If I produce something similar to a patented work by coincidence then I'm stuffed and can be sued by the patent holder. It's a system that works to a degree; if you tried to extend patents to replace copyright on software you'd just create a heck of a lot more work for lawyers (as if they didn't have enough already) and force small companies and freelance individuals out of the software industry altogether.

I think that there should be no such thing as copyrights or patents.

Morally you may or may not be correct, but abolishing intellectual property would potentially have huge implications for an information based economy. I very much doubt anyone has the courage to risk change.