🚀 go-pugleaf

Dan Floyd (u-dmfloy@albion) says:
> Did Euler or Newton copyright their formulas?  Do mathematicians
> copyright their equations?  It would seem rather odd to pay a royalty
> for using such equations.

Copyrights only cover the expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
Further, a formula or "law of nature" (such as e = m c^2) cannot be
copyrighted (or, for that matter, patented).  Whether algorithms are
formulas or laws of nature is in dispute; you can usually tell someone's
viewpoint by whether he refers to one as being discovered or invented.

> I can't help but wonder if the companies tied up in litigation are fresh
> out of original ideas.  Yes, it is harder to be creative.  Yes, it would
> be easier to rest on what's been done. Although the tactic may be
> successful short term, if the lead in a race attempts to rest by trying
> to force others not to pass, that lead's probably going to loose the race.

I think this is exactly what is happening.  Lotus, Apple, and friends are
taking a tack that will with good probability be profitable in the short
run, regardless of its long-range impact on the industry or the litigants
themselves.  Lotus stock is losing a lot of its value because it is seen as
a one-product company without any depth.

The increasing litigiousness of American industry in general is a serious
problem, and it may have a hand in our slipping position globally.  We need
to concentrate our resources on productive enterprises, not waste them on
unproductive activities like gratuituos lawsuits by the heavies who are
watching their positions erode.

> 3) Someone will design a completely new product that makes their
>    product obsolete.

This will always happen, to every product, anyway.  These companies are
concerned about the profits to be made before it comes to pass.

					-Michael Ernst
					 mernst@theory.lcs.mit.edu