[OT] Where ill conceived copyright laws can lead

[Richmond]

On 10/11/2012 10:28 PM, Ralph DiMola wrote:
> First of all let me say that the LAW-IS-THE-LAW and I don't try to steal
> intellectual property. I tell my friends "just because it's easy, doesn't
> make it legal".
>

No, and neither do I . . . BUT . . . there are some interesting 
questions that pop up
about the fuzzy borders round intellectual property:

1. Once upon-a-time somebody thought up the idea of a computer program 
called a "word processor";

How come all those producers of Word Processing programs  (MSW, Apache 
OOO, LibreOffice,
Calligra, et al) aren't paying royalties to that person.

2. Adobe Photoshop is a super program all wrapped up in copyright, yet

GIMP, and KRITA (among others) have filters that produce drop-shadows, 
bevel edges, and so forth, that,
as far as I am aware, first saw light in Photoshop; nobody, however, is 
paying Adobe royalties
for those things.

3. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, I am a brilliant computer 
program (that will be my only
joke in this posting, I promise) and I make a complete clone of RunRev 
Livecode from scratch:

virtually looks the same, functions the same, opens Livecode files and 
runs them, and so forth,
but is NOT Livecode

one wonders how near to the wind I would actually be sailing.

---------------------

Or, put it another way, if Shakespeare were alive could he sue the pants 
off the producers of 'Westside Story' because they ripped-off 'Romeo and 
Juliet'?