On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:09:52 -0400, Chante <udontspa...@never.will.u>
wrote:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op.v3zaemhyeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:28:21 -0400, Kagamin <s...@here.lot> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that
would
otherwise die with the inventor. The idea is, if you patent
something,
you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the fruits
of
your invention.
I think, this can work for software the same way.
You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents.
You can with machines as well, but software has the added bonus that
copyright protects your IP.
It does not? The engineered concepts are not protected by copyright,
AFAIK, and THAT is what the IP is. THAT is what took all those years of
R&D. So with copyright, someon can paraphrase the source code and then
the inventor is SOL?
You think the "one click" design took years of R&D, and not the building
of the amazon site?
Again, "paraphrasing" is not so easy with software. Whether you are good
or not, it takes a long time to write good software. You really think
patents are the reason people don't copy large software projects?
Think about DVD "encryption" that was used to protect DVDs from copying.
Although it was a poor encryption and once cracked, was ridiculed for its
simplicity and ease of circumvention, it still was very successful in
preventing people from copying DVDs. It was a long time before someone
actually cracked it. Is that because of patents? No, it was because the
encryption was a trade secret, only handed out to those who could pay a
hefty sum and promised not to use it to make copies or divulge it to any
third party.
Software is HARD to reverse engineer (even though it's definitely
possible), and its HARD to replicate without direct copying. One has to
go from binary code all the way back to the design/spec, and then go
forward to a completely rewritten, tested, and well developed product. We
are talking a huge investment of time and effort, all the time while the
original author has since improved their product.
Your statements appear to employ hand-waving to describe the tedious
process of making a legal re-implementation of software. Yes, copyright
protects your investment and your effort, more so than patents. Trade
secrets actually are better than patents to protect you because you aren't
forced to divulge it to the world.
-Steve
