week 3

A Supreme Court case was submitted on the 21st that will decide whether or not binary code can be patented. A statute stated that code must be "married to a computer" and that there needs to be a device because you cannot patent an idea or principle. Also, the act of supplying embraces the act of copying; therefore, if a company wants to send a patented product abroad, they must also send copies of the machines used to make it so it can be mass produced in this new country. Now the court must decide if the code AT&T is using can be patented.

I think that code should not be able to be patented because it is not the code, but what the code makes that is important. The result of the code can be patented. This is similar to a book. The book is the final product of putting together many words. The book can be patented, but the words in the book cannot. Since the book is copyrighted, chapters and sentences are protected, too (which is how plagiarism is possible). The machine or device is the final product of putting together code. It can be patented, but the code that it is made up of cannot. The pieces of code that make up the website are protected just as the chapters and sentences that make up the book are as it is illegal to steal code from a website. Since the pieces that make up the book and the machine or device are already protected by this copyright, it is unnecessary to patent the smaller pieces individually as well.

Law and the world wide web

I saw an article that talked about backing up DVDs and whether or not that was a
violation of the fair use concept. The courts ruled that it was because it
conflicts with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which exists to address
industry concerns about PC-based media copying. Basically, the industry is so
concerned about people copying and distributing media that they are preventing
anyone from copying it for any purpose. Many people wanted to back up their DVDs
in case they got scratched, corrupted, or otherwise damaged, as any of those
things would make them useless. However, they cannot because someone else might
use the technology to break the law.
I think this is ridiculous. I believe that if you pay for something, you should
be able to ensure that you are able to have continued use of it. Consumers
should not be punished for something that someone else may or may not do.
That is a dangerous precedent, especially if applied to other aspects of life,
such as gun ownership. Most people who own guns do not commit crimes with them;
however, a small percentage do. Does that mean we should prevent everyone from
owning a gun?
Furthermore, laws such as these encourage the very same behavior they were
enacted to put an end to. Why go out and spend $15-$25 to buy a DVD that might
get ruined a while later? You might as well have burned the money. I agree that
illegal distribution is a problem and should not be ignored; however, there are
better ways to do it. Punishing others for the mistakes of a few is not the way,
especially when the punishment includes denying some of the legal rights of the
owner. Furthermore, as with the aforementioned gun analogy, those who choose to
break the law will find another way to do it so limiting the rights of others
does no good to the industry.

week of 2/4/07

Recently there has been a lot of talk about social networking sites, such as Facebook and MySpace, and the privacy issues associated with them. These are sites used mostly by teenagers and young adults to communicate and post pictures; however, employers are using the sites to investigate potential employees. The main things they are looking for are "drinking habits/drug use, nudity, general sleaziness, and criminal behavior ranging from shoplifting to violent assaults".

This has generated a lot of controversy. Students who use these sites do not usually think about a future employer checking them out when they are designing their webpage. This practice brings up the issue of how much or little privacy one should have when making a webpage. I am undecided on the issue. It makes sense that anyone with an account on these websites should be able to look at other people's profiles and I do believe that if you put something on the internet, then everyone has the right to look at it, similar to a diminished expectation of privacy. However, I do not think that people should be judged by their internet profiles. Facebook and MySpace pictures often have things that many companies would not find appropriate, but the behavior presented in pictures on these sites is not a good predictor of behavior in a work environment. The way a person acts depends on their surroundings and employers should realize that no one is going to behave in the same manner at a party and at work. Also, in terms of drinking, many students drink while they are in college; however, once they graduate, they usually stop or cut back dramatically. Social networking sites are poor determinants of professional behavior and employers should not take them into serious consideration when determining who will work for them.