RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted for ReviewbySCOTUS

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

What congress and the world needs to do is a major overhaul of the 
"intellectual property" laws. (PersonallyIMHO WIPO should be flushed down 
the toilet and countries should do those agreements between themselves.) 
balancing off trade secret protection-copyright-patent as well as defining 
precisely what it what. It's idiotic that software gets patent, copyright and 
trade secret protection.


From:           	Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-
discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted for 
ReviewbySCOTUS
Date sent:      	Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:19:49 -0800
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> ...
> > 
> > As for software,  with the source unpublished, none of the source work
> > is promoting progress yet it is granted copyright protection. 
> >  Escrowing
> > the source serves two important purposes copyright, patent 
> > and antitrust
> > suits have the right to discovery of the exact source 
> > comprise the base
> > work for the published work.  Without this, stolen code (as 
> > was the case
> > in a recent e-CAD lawsuit) can lurk for years without 
> > detection.  Also,
> > granting a new copyright on a "mechanically derived" work 
> > (compilers are
> > not authors) -- requires more than "trust me... it's all 
> > new." Further,
> > any software patents (evil, but extant) suits need to be able 
> > to examine
> > the actual implementation.  Finally, the evolution of the escrowed
> > source may be critical in determining "intent" in antitrust suits.  As
> > secure escrow can protected trade secrets -- however a publication
> > requirement of source may actually REDUCE software piracy.  How you
> > ask?  If everyone publishes, then it is easy to scan your competitions
> > code to ensure none of it was stolen from you -- and vice versa. 
> > (actually a whole industry will arise to create and detect 
> > automagically
> > munged and stolen code -- but if the code mungers have to publish
> > *their* source ...
> > 
> 
> This brings us back again to the difference between copyright
> and trade secret.  If you publish your source code, it's protected
> under copyright, otherwise it's to be considered as a trade secret
> and subject to the protections (and vulnerabilities) thereof.
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!