[PD] Real Time Composition Library

[Chuckk Hubbard]

On 8/9/06, Mathieu Bouchard <matju at artengine.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, David Powers wrote:
>
> > What is the legal status of a program that mimics another programs
> > functions, but does not copy any of the actual source code or guts?
>
> Morally, I consider that this is a god-given right.
>
> Traditionally it has pretty much been a right (think about what the USA
> Constitution says about intellectual property). However this system has
> drifted over the years: I think I remember laws forbidding "reverse
> engineering", but also, the DMCA is the biggest example. OTOH there are
> rulings that specifically say that interfaces can't be copyrighted or
> otherwise encumbered, and I would believe that this extends to imitation
> of a complete program. (There were also some rulings on similar topics in
> opposite direction... this may depend on who the judge happened to be each
> time)


I agree.  A patent on an interface or an idea would prevent
improvements from being made on it, and most likely prevent it from
ever becoming universal.  A patent on the actual structure used to
enact it, on the other hand, would seem to force improvements to be
made, as people invented their own ways of realizing it.
I personally don't understand the difference between a software patent
and a standard patent.  If an idea realized with programs ought not to
be owned, why should an idea realized with metal and wood and plastic
be owned?
It's funny that the patent was so important to someone like Edison.
Such a creative person benefiting from restricting creativity.
It's an odd thought, that someone could be paid for the rest of their
life for one year's work.