Michael Stevens wrote:
kurttrail wrote:
Michael Stevens wrote:

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote, "The limited scope of the
copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like the limited copyright
duration required by the Constitution, reflects a balance of
competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be
encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately
serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of
literature, music, and the
other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a
fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim
is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the
general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and the
primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said, 'lie
in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html

I have yet to find a clearer or more beautiful explanation of purpose
of Copyright in the US!

If you say so. LOL. Sounded a little tentative to me. It also seemed
to be slanted toward the arts. What case was this missive quoted
from? It's hard to comprehend how you think Microsoft should not
have the right to charge for technology they developed in house or
find and acquire to integrate into the OS. If you look at the
pricing of Windows, it has not increased in price on scale with the
worth of the dollar. It is still a bargain, and MS is a business that
shareholders expect a return on their investment.