[artsrc]

One problem with IP laws is that to fully enforce them you need a police state.

I don't know precisely what you are thinking, but my view is that the IP framework should be: For a published work to be eligible for copyright, source code must be published. Something like a cross between github and the library of congress.

Publishing source code does not currently relinquish all rights. This would add greatly to our societies store of knowledge and would help prevent the IP theft in the code of published works.

[eshi]

This is sort of what I was getting at. I agree that releasing source code shouldn't be a matter of giving up property rights. In fact, plenty of commercial systems and software do allow source code access. However, it always seems to be through messy licenses and cumbersome legal agreements to not divulge anything.

As it stands, companies seem more motivated to protect their IP rights than to produce tools that would keep science reliable. IMHO, companies view source code as the product of their investments and secrets worth protecting. The main fear seems to be that if these secrets are published competition could use them against them by receiving a boost in their own R&D efforts by deriving methods and processes from their own work.

This doesn't seem like just a software problem since I've heard wetware horror stories from biotech and agriculture folks.

It honestly makes me wonder if software should be something you can patent. At some level, it seems disturbingly similar to companies that patent colors, genes, or derived living organisms.