[h2o-discuss] is software like a movie?

[Eric Eldred <eldred@mediaone.net>]

In my state of puzzlement as to what the essence of intellectual
property computer software is, I find more confusion from:

http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/ms080599.htm

Here Microsoft is claiming that software is really like
movies and music entertainment, not like books or patentable
instructions for a machine, and thus ought to enjoy some
tax deductions under a law that was subsequently changed
by Congress.

Their assertion, and the subsequent law, seem to smudge
the distinctions between "code" and such things as
entertainment.  Therefore the theoretical basis for
copyright and patent intellectual property is brought
into question.

For example, if software is 1) like a movie; 2) patentable;
then 3) why not patent movies?

The confusion is also illustrated by the judge's response
to a PowerPoint presentation--he confuses the product, the
creative expression made with the computer software tools,
with the code, the computer tools that comprise the
PowerPoint software.  It is the latter in question, not
the former.

But the power of Congress to determine that software is
in one ontological category rather than another should
not be arbitrary.  Which is it, REALLY?  And what are the
implications for the rest of intellectual property ontology?

-- 
"Eric"    Eric Eldred      Eldritch Press
mailto:EricEldred@usa.net  http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/
"support online books!" http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/support.html