Re: [QD-Filosofia] Patente e Regustro

Ricardo Andere de Mello wrote:
> por conta do que o Nelson disse, alguns pregam que pelo fato do software 
> ter uma vida média de três anos (para uma mesma versão), a redução das 
> patentes de software para um prazo menor ajudaria. Isto é pouco para 
> eles, mas pode com certeza significar liderança de mercado.
> Eu não compratilho da mesma opinião, pois se aplicadas de verdade, 
> ficaríamos sempre atrasados 3 anos em certos nichos, o que acho 
> inaceitável.

Eu sou absolutamente contra as patentes de software; elas não são usadas 
para promover a inovação, e sim para impedir a livre concorrência.

O prazo de três anos que você cita não está relacionado ao período de 
patentes, e sim ao copyright: após este prazo, o software cairia em 
domínio público.

Esta é a proposta do Stallman:

"One important dimension of copyright is its duration, which is now 
typically on the order of a century. Reducing the monopoly on copying to 
ten years, starting from the date when a work is published, would be a 
good first step. Another aspect of copyright, which covers the making of 
derivative works, could continue for a longer period.

Why ten years? Because that is a safe proposal; we can be confident on 
practical grounds that this reduction would have little impact on the 
overall viability of publishing today. In most media and genres, 
successful works are very profitable in just a few years, and even 
successful works are usually out of print well before ten. Even for 
reference works, whose useful life may be many decades, ten-year 
copyright should suffice: updated editions are issued regularly, and 
many readers will buy the copyrighted current edition rather than copy a 
ten-year-old public domain version.

Ten years may still be longer than necessary; once things settle down, 
we could try a further reduction to tune the system. At a panel on 
copyright at a literary convention, where I proposed the ten-year term, 
a noted fantasy author sitting beside me objected vehemently, saying 
that anything beyond five years was intolerable.

But we don't have to apply the same time span to all kinds of works. 
Maintaining the utmost uniformity of copyright policy is not crucial to 
the public interest, and copyright law already has many exceptions for 
specific uses and media. It would be foolish to pay for every highway 
project at the rates necessary for the most difficult projects in the 
most expensive regions of the country; it is equally foolish to "pay" 
for all kinds of art with the greatest price in freedom that we find 
necessary for any one kind.

So perhaps novels, dictionaries, computer programs, songs, symphonies, 
and movies should have different durations of copyright, so that we can 
reduce the duration for each kind of work to what is necessary for many 
such works to be published. Perhaps movies over one hour long could have 
a twenty-year copyright, because of the expense of producing them. In my 
own field, computer programming, three years should suffice, because 
product cycles are even shorter than that".

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

_______________________________________________
Quilombodigital-filosofia mailing list
Quilombodigital-filosofia-lWjjnNBg0S7cOli+L/M/[email protected]
http://listas.quilombodigital.org/mailman/listinfo/quilombodigital-filosofia