Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats
From: Marty Fouts (usenet-user@usa.net)Date: 02/20/02
- Next message: Marty Fouts: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Previous message: Alun Jones: "Re: IP ADDRESS"
- In reply to: Bruno Wolff III: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Next in thread: Bruno Wolff III: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Reply: Bruno Wolff III: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Marty Fouts <usenet-user@usa.net> Date: 20 Feb 2002 09:45:56 -0800
Bruno Wolff III <bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu> writes:
> In article <ulmdomsaz.fsf@usa.net>, Marty Fouts wrote:
> >
> > Um, no, that wasn't it. The hardware people did a fine job within
> > the patent system, and most computer companies used trade-secret
> > status to protect their software, or simply charged outrageous
> > license fees to those few who wished to see the source.
>
> There is a huge difference between what people could do with
> copyright and patents. The fact that people kept their code hidden
> in some cases wasn't that big of a deal. They couldn't stop other
> people from reimplenting the same ideas.
>
> Software patents were and still are a terrible idea. (Made even
> worse by the terrible job the USPO does.) Copyright or trade secret
> are the appropiate protections for software.
Trade secret status is always appropriate if you wish to take the risk
entailed and do the necessary work to protect.
But copyright isn't an appropriate form of protection for algorithms
and such like, because of the duration involved.
You are, of course, right about the problem with the US PTO, though;
but that applies to all patents not just software.
> > You don't really think that DEC and Data General were sharing
> > knowledge about RSX, do you?
>
> I never saw RSX, but I got to read listings of VMS code without
> signing an NDA in the early 80s. It seems DEC made the source code
> available to Universities. I don't what what we paid for it, but I
> doubt it was too much. We also didn't get machine readable
> copies. However the microfiche did have the machine code generated
> by the source, making it possible for us to make changes to the
> binaries, which we did from time to time.
DEC made VMS source available to any customer willing to pay for it,
charging different rates to different classes of customers. I remember
paying for it (I ran a college computer center) but I don't recall how
much.
You may not have signed an NDA, but it is possible that the university
signed one that, at that time, was thought to be binding on you
anyway. AT&T used to sign those with universities for System V source
licenses, and then the universities would neglect to tell students and
staff that they were bound by it. (You don't have to sign an NDA to
be bound by it, but your employeer/school is neglegent if they don't
inform you that you are.)
- Next message: Marty Fouts: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Previous message: Alun Jones: "Re: IP ADDRESS"
- In reply to: Bruno Wolff III: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Next in thread: Bruno Wolff III: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Reply: Bruno Wolff III: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
