Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GMontag
Umm, it *is* perfectly legal for OpenOffice to read and write Word .doc files. File formats are not elligible for copyrights or patents (the exception to this is when file formats require complicated decoding or decompression algorithms to read, e.g. MPEG, and even then the patent is on the algorithm, not on the format itself). The reason that OpenOffice has problems reading .doc files is because the format is not *open*, which means that OpenOffice must reverse engineer the format. This requires a significant amount of work. Compounding that requirement is the fact that Microsoft drastically changes the format with each new release of Word. The only thing that keeps OpenOffice from being fully compatible with .doc (the are mostly compatible already) is the fact that they simply don't have enough manpower to keep up with Microsoft. There is no government regulation that you can remove to rectify this situation.
|
Legal, yes; possible, no. My point is a bit more clear if you watch the relatively short talk by Lawrence Lesig, but in the past all creativity and technology was transparent. For example - and this is ripped directly from Lessig - one did not have to look at the patent to the cotton gin to find out how it worked, one could take apart the cotton gin and figure it out themselves. Likewise, I believe this should continue to apply to all creative works. Reverse-engineering should be legal
across the board - not just with something like the APIs. Not to mention that the DMCA is working against even that.
I have no problem with the fact many people choose Microsoft, but the sad state of copyrights makes it difficult for people to have much of a choice in the first place. If you read between the lines of what I'm saying, all software should be open source as all creativity in the past has been "open source" if you will, and the model of "open source" creativity in the past has proven to be the best in terms of innovation, progression, and rights of use. Minimal regulation should be given to creative works - to the extent of ONLY regulating production/publication - again, as it was in the past. To steal another popular point mentioned in the Lesig talk, copyright now is designed so that no one can do to Disney what Disney did to others. Well, I see nothing wrong with what Disney did to others and there should be a return to a society where that kind of free enterprise - building off the work of others - is completely legal and possible.
I suspect most Libertarians would disagree with me on this one, but I do not believe information and knowledge to be a property and, thus, I focus on misplaced government regulation instead.
Because I feel it's so vitally important to understand, and because it provides a far clearer understanding of what I mean than a single textual post on an internet forum can do, here, again, is the link to the Lawrence Lessig talk. Again, it is
HIGHLY recommended, and I suggest the flash version since it provides visual as well audio.
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/lessig/