I dont see that the drug analogy is better since I, as the end user of the drug that I paid for, actually own it. I dont just license it, as I currently do with programs.
Are you suggesting with the drug analogy that there should be a 5-10-20yr limitation on MS's monopoly of DOS for example. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to hear it.
It seems to me that EULA protections of programs are an absurd variant of the laws that cover other intellectual properties (such as music). No one could argue that the disc that the program is printed on has real value, whereas the drug itself (as well as the creative process) has value. Given the limited tech knowledge of our legislators, its no wonder that such bizzare aberations have been allowed. With time, however, I think the current laws will change as more tech savy people enter govt.
Are you suggesting with the drug analogy that there should be a 5-10-20yr limitation on MS's monopoly of DOS for example. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to hear it.
It seems to me that EULA protections of programs are an absurd variant of the laws that cover other intellectual properties (such as music). No one could argue that the disc that the program is printed on has real value, whereas the drug itself (as well as the creative process) has value. Given the limited tech knowledge of our legislators, its no wonder that such bizzare aberations have been allowed. With time, however, I think the current laws will change as more tech savy people enter govt.
Comment