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 interrogate
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.
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outloo...snewreader.htm