Laws of Protecting Proprietary Software

Laws play a fundamental role in shaping a society and in preserving its order. Property laws preserve order by establishing relationships between individuals, different sorts of objects and the state of the relationship between individuals and objects. Ownership claims involving "intellectual objects" are both similar to and different from ownership of tangible objects. Non-tangible or "intellectual" objects represent creative works and inventions. Intellectual objects, such as software programs, are non-exclusionary. Intellectual objects can be easily reproduced at a relatively low cost. Legally, one cannot own an idea in the same sense that one can own a physical object. However legal protection is given only to the tangible expression of an idea that is creative or original. Current law says that intellectual property should be protected. A property right is a natural right for the individuals who worked to achieve the goal of getting the property or inventing the property, including intellectual objects. Property rights also encourage creators and inventors to bring forth their artistic works and inventions. So, property right law is essential for the positive growth of our society. Although, some critics argue that computer software should be excluded from copyright and patent protection laws, I do not believe that the law for protecting proprietary software has gone too far. Following are the reasons.
1. Copyright is a legal form of protection given to a person or author.
2. If the software is not protected by copyright or proprietary protection laws then it will discourage the inventors and software programmers to spend their valuable time and money on inventing a solution and bring it in the market.
3. Even though software can be expensive, when we consider the amount of time, and investment an individual or an organization makes the price of the software seems very reasonable.
4. Most of the software comes with evaluation versions for users to try before they make the investment on the software.
5. For educational purposes, most of the students get access to software from the schools. So, students having limited finances does not justify stealing.
6. When someone purchases a software it is only for that person’s use or the use of a number of people which the licensing agreement allows.
7. Software may not be tangible but they are the result of people’s hard work and unauthorized use is stilling.
8. Any property physical or intellectual is a property and may not be stolen.
9. The programmers and companies that produce software cannot compete against free.

To balance the exclusive controls given to copyright holders against the broader interests of society, there is principle of fair use. This means that every author or publisher may make limited use of another person’s copyrighted work for the purposes of criticism, comment, news, reporting, teaching and research, etc. Fair use restricts the total control of copyright holders and it also supports reverse engineering for research, etc. When the original software is sold for the first time the owner loses rights over the work which is called first-sale doctrine. First-sale doctrine is another balancing scheme. However, to protect copyright holders, SBCTEA extends the time of protection for copyrighted works. Authorities such as DMCA has anti-circumvention clause also to protect copyright holders. Unauthorized uploading and downloading of software is also prohibited.

Labor theory of property says that a person is entitled to the result of his or her labor. Utilitarian theory says, property rights should be granted because they provide an incentive to bring ideas into the marketplace. The personality theory says, a property right should be granted because of the personality of the author that is invested in the creative work. At the same time, open source software are available in the market for users to use, distribute or run research on. So, there is always a balancing act which allows individuals or organizations to be able to use software without stilling or breaking the law.

References:

1. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). “Ethics & Technology – Chapter 8”.