[twainer]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If my business and my copyright are the same thing, why should I be forced to 'open-source' my business after ten years?

Neither trade secret nor trademark nor service marks protect my creative work; only copyright. But my copyright is my business just as the source code is the foundation of Joel's business. So what Joel thinks is good for my business is surely acceptable for his own.

If anti-copyright folks are as concerned as they claim to be about adding value back into society - and as quickly as possible at that - it makes overwhelming sense that valuable services such as software should be scrutinized first, before mere entertainment. We should obviously be talking about limiting a term on trade secrets - not just copyright - people will still have trademarks and service marks to defend their reputation and authenticity.

[18pfsmt]

>We should obviously be talking about limiting a term on trade secrets

That doesn't make any sense. Copyrights and trade secrets are two very different creatures. In order to benefit from a copyrighted work, the creator has to show the work, but this is not the case with trade secrets.

I honestly don't understand how one could even begin to compare the two. Copyrights and patents have to be revealed specifically in order to be granted protection, and you are certainly within your rights to keep your patented creations and copyrighted works to yourself.

[twainer]

The limiting of copyright and patent is supported by advocates of such limitations on the basis of benefits from the work accruing in a more fair balance between the individual and society. It is stated on this thread and many others that it is society that chooses to allow patent and copyright to exist exactly in order to bring forth the work of individuals. The good of society is placed above that of the creator of the work.

If one likes that idea, it works even better in the case of 'trade secrets'. Abolishing trade secrets and instead substituting a time limit like that of a patent would REALLY let those benefits flow to society at large. We force pharmaceutical firms to come up with new ideas every patent cycle; why should software - after all, it's 'eating the world' and is a highly-maleable product - be exempt from that process of creative renewal?

Case in point: Microsoft used it's dominance gained from Windows to directly stifle competition, to the point where the law had to get involved.

Google was a disruptive force initially, but now they have begun to tweak their algorithm to fortify the walled-garden they wish to build - while also using the Microsoft model of buying up potentially disruptive companies.