Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
I don't think you represent many software companies if you are taking that position. And I don't think you do much counseling or litigation of copyright cases, either. These start ups only have so much money to spend on lawyers. If it is better spent securing patent protection or dotting the i's and crossing the t's with an NDA to protect their trade secrets, it is not at all short-sighted. It is a business reality for them.
If they don't apply for a patent, they don't get one. If they don't maintain their trade secrets under an obligation of confidentiality, they lose their trade secrets. If they don't register for a copyright, all they lose is attorneys fees they still have copyrights. Now if the company doesn't have enough money for patents, NDAs, and copyright registration, which one would you give up? Assuming they have patentable inventions and trades secrets, the money is better spent on those because if you don't spend the money you either never get the patent or lose the trade secret. With a copyright, you have it regardless of registration. You can register when you need to assert it and all you are isking is attorney's fees. And that is only if you are talking civil actions. For criminal actions for pirated code, the DOJ pays the cost of prosecuting the offenders.
|
Beyond making assumptions about what you think my "position" is, you seem to assume that the legal costs in assisting a client with a copyright registration is either equivalent or comparable to trade secret counseling or patent protection.
Is this the point in the conversation where others tell you that yours is a fascinating point, and they'll be right back as soon as they freshen their drink?
