On mySimon: Remington Ms2-390 Electric Shaver
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 25 of 71:
Next »
« Previous
Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks are not even comparable
People like to lump those three things into one big category called "Intellectual Property Rights", but in fact they are totally different things with totally different purposes.

Patents are used to encourage innovation amongst inventors. The arguement against patents in software is that software in its purest form is a mathematical algorithm, and that you should no more have a right to patent an algorithm that allows for one click web purchases than you have a right to patent e=mc^2. Patenting an algorithm, in effect, stiffles innovation because unlike a patented machine or industrial process, limiting access to newly discovered mathematical algorithms also limits the scientific community's access to the algorithm, thus preventing improvement upon it. And the speed of innovation in computer software goes much faster than in the industrial world, so the longer time limits for a normal patent far exceed the usefulness of the algorithm being patented. Plus, the way the system works is that the first person to point out an algorithm, not the first person to have used it, gets the patent. So you can come up with an almost insignificant algorithm and never come up with a useful application yourself, but charge royalties
to all who do. With machine patents, it would be almost impossible to do that and actually make money.

Copyrights are used to protect authored bodies of works. A software program is an authored body of work and thus falls under copyright protection. No true F/OSS will ever argue against copyright protection or promote copyright abuse. Now you do have the FSF promoting its "copyleft" copyright scheme, but in essense it is still a form of copyright.

Trademarks have nothing to do with science or math or authored work. It has everything to do with pure advertisement. Those same F/OSS people who defend copyright protection will also defend trademark protection, simply because neither one stands in the way of scientific research. Now some will argue against "proprietary" forms of copyright licenses because that does restrict their personal use of software, but rather than fight that in court (because that would mean attacking the same copyright laws that protect their own work) they simply avoid proprietary software. But trademarks have zero effect on their personal use of the code, it only affects what they get to call it in public.

That's kind of why I wasn't overly interested in the trademark case againse Lindows. True, the Windows trademark should probably have never been given to MS in the first place since it was a generic term before MS tried to trademark it. But it did not, and could never have, prevented the Lindows software itself from being distributed. All MS could do was make them change their name.

And by the way, even though F/OSS folk are against "proprietary" copyright licenses and are against software patents, all you'll find them doing is speaking out against them. You won't see them violating them, at least not intentionally, and when it is done unintentionally and it's brought to their attention they fix the problem. Those that do violate them are pirates mascarading as open source advocates.
Posted by: Michael Kelly   Posted on: 08/22/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Makes sense  Tim Patterson | 08/22/05
Yup, just like open source patents.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/22/05
Wrong again Bit  Tim Patterson | 08/22/05
Never sais otherwise.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/22/05
The difference is  Michael Kelly | 08/22/05
Cut it anyway you like, OS is becoming more like the others.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/22/05
RE: Cut it anyway you like, OS is becoming more like the others.  Linux User 147560 | 08/22/05
Also from the article  Tim Patterson | 08/22/05
RE: It's a sign open source....  AmusedAtItAll | 08/22/05
Tilting at windmills for no reason.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/22/05
I would say your Linux world is about to change  John Zern | 08/22/05
pretty far fetched even from you  Monkey_MCSE | 08/22/05
Just ignore him  bhodges00 | 08/22/05
Is your understanding of Intellectual Propert Law limited to Patents?  B.O.F.H. | 08/22/05
Gee, I was replying to a story about trademarks.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/22/05
Good to see you spouting your anti-competitive rants!  B.O.F.H. | 08/22/05
That's funny  rapson | 08/22/05
Subtract 5 points for using common sense.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/22/05
No wonder you never lose any points  Jeff Spicoli | 08/22/05
Minus 10 points for a useless personal attack.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/22/05
Bzzzt! Wrong, Axey.  Judas I. | 08/22/05
Touche`  jacarter3 | 08/22/05
Hey how you doing tail rider?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/22/05
I think..  Patrick Jones | 08/22/05
Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks are not even comparable  Michael Kelly | 08/22/05
True enought, and open source is now playing in all three ball parks.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/22/05
They were always in 2 of the 3  Michael Kelly | 08/22/05
I agree, GPL -3 should be interesting  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/22/05
From the story:  Confused by religion | 08/22/05
Easy  Patrick Jones | 08/22/05
I don't remember that story..  Monkey_MCSE | 08/22/05
Uh...wrong  marksashton | 08/22/05
But  Michael Kelly | 08/22/05
yes..  Patrick Jones | 08/22/05
It would have to be  Michael Kelly | 08/22/05
You are so wrong!  ShadeTree | 08/22/05
Which article did you read?  Patrick Jones | 08/22/05
I doubt anyone would mix them up...  el1jones | 08/22/05
people these days  linuxoverwindows | 08/23/05
MikeRoweSoft  SC-man | 08/22/05
microsoft was being stupid...  linuxoverwindows | 08/23/05
i wonder  linuxoverwindows | 08/23/05
Better get used to it folks ...  George Mitchell | 08/22/05
Well said George...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/22/05
Torvalds weighs in on Linux trademark row  Loverock Davidson | 08/22/05
LD, you are as bad with the rants as the zealots.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/22/05
ummm...  doh123 | 08/22/05
Since always  Loverock Davidson | 08/22/05
Here is the actual definiton of "Zealot".  Zogg | 08/23/05
Did you read the definition?  Loverock Davidson | 08/23/05
But you are excessively committed against Linux.  Zogg | 08/23/05
try a windows zealot.  linuxoverwindows | 08/23/05
2: a fervent and even militant proponent of something  linuxoverwindows | 08/23/05
hmmm, you must have missed this part  Monkey_MCSE | 08/22/05
I read it  Loverock Davidson | 08/22/05
anyone does...  linuxoverwindows | 08/23/05
Poor guy  IT Scion | 08/22/05
yeah, in fact...  linuxoverwindows | 08/23/05
I can understand Trademarking a name  John Zern | 08/22/05
step away from the keyboard and put the pipe down  Monkey_MCSE | 08/22/05
I trying to piont out that  John Zern | 08/22/05
Wrong  Michael Kelly | 08/23/05
exactly  linuxoverwindows | 08/23/05
Un-Copyrighted works are Public Domain  Michael Kelly | 08/22/05
Linux is owned by him.  Wagadonga | 08/22/05
This is bad publicity for linux  Loverock Davidson | 08/22/05
no tears here, either.  linuxoverwindows | 08/23/05
here neither  Loverock Davidson | 08/23/05
since you mention bsd ...  linuxoverwindows | 08/23/05
Maybe there is hope  jorwell | 08/23/05
Remebering the Original Trademark Issue  TDWinfo | 08/23/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here