“One problem is that the code may have held information on valuations of perhaps stocks, commodities, and maybe even derivatives trading. I can’t see any other reason why the FBI would have been so interested in him when the plane landed.”
From the above comment I assume you aren’t a programmer of any description. The cardinal sin of any program is to include data in the code so, if it was any decent type of code, the above would NOT apply.

Exactly what I was thinking. What type of coder hard codes something as temporal as that information in? It would have to be abstracted somehow to be of any use.

“How do you figure that the engine that the games used should not be copyrightable? The engine represents just as much of a creative effort as the end result of what it is used to create.

The core language that the engine is written in though is no more copyrightable than the English Language is. But the compilers, the engines etc should be protected, they represent a substantial amount of effort on their owner’s part.“

I disagree, engines just use math to draw lines on the screen. They don’t even say much of how the lines should look like in most cases, but provide an easy framework for graphic designers to come in and fill the void.

algorithms to handle data and put pretty colors on the screen are not creative, there are only so many available to use i the first place. You make a game that uses ray-tracing? guess what, everyone else’s ray tracing engine will look just like yours, the only difference (ignoring the variable names) would be spacing, and unless someone writes their code in Ascii art, it would not be creative.

you say that the basics of the language should not be copyrightable, but at what point do they become so? should “i++” be copyrightable? how about “fooC=fooA+fooB”? how about a standard recursive function? Should any function that solves the classic towers of Hanoi be copyrightable? why? the point is that any algorithm or section of code is not innovative, copyright just cripples any programmer who actually pays attention to it and you can tell that most experienced programmers don’t pay attention based on how willing they are to share their code.

“One thing that is expressed over and over is that the same programmer writing two seperate programs that have similar requirements will create code that looks similar. This is true, BUT if that code is for two seperate employers why should the second employer benefit from work paid for by the first?“

the fact that the same program written by two different coders will look similar should immediately indicate that copyright should not apply. Secondly, name a programmer that does not keep a reference book or website at hand at all times. Every programmer references the code of other people (or previous code they wrote) when they are doing something they haven’t done in a while. In fact almost every programming class encourages this kind of activity by assigning tasks such as “Modify X code so that it does Y differently/better”. Programmers are taught that when they don’t know how to do something they search for code that does something similar, learn how it works and then modify it to suit their needs. In that sense company 1 has already benefited from the work that company 0 has produced because the programmer looks up code that other people have needed to write and use for different purposes. Now company 0 may or may not be an actual company, but that doesn’t really matter, everyone benefits when the code is shared because code itself isn’t creative and by opening it up it allows companies to focus on doing the actual creative parts, the presentation of the code.

Much like a fact is not copyrightable, Code should not be copyrightable, the unique expression and presentation of the fact (or what code does) should be. What makes Microsoft Office “unique” is not the code that runs that allows you enter text and save them to various file types but the user-interface, the layout of the program, and the various way of presenting those options to the user. The same holds true with games.

“I keep a Bound Book or Engineers book where I document my daily activities. These books are for the purpose of protecting myself and/or my employer from cases where I create similar looking code. I know that the books will hold up un court, but not sure how the law would handle similar code. I would hope that the judge would rule in favor of the “spirit of the law” which is to keep me from using or making an exact copy, but where I re-created the work I would be safe.

I require any programmer to keep a similar book, and make it clear that it is property of my companies, and them not returning it at the end of their employement is a commission of theft. I also turn such books over to employers if I am in a work for hire situation.“

All this does is highlight how silly the copyrightable code concept is and the problems it causes companies. This is not an argument for supporting that code should be copyrighted but rather an anecdote that points out quite vividly why it should not be.

“As far as the post claiming that no employer has made them sign that they would not keep copies of their work, you might want to revisit your employee manuals. Most every company I have ever worked has statement requiring that all property be returned to them upon termination of employment. Hate to break your heard but that includes the software that you worked on, and all copies of such software.“

I am quite clear on what my company requires. As long as the code does not contain any PII or other potentially harmful information I am allowed to keep my own copy; it is something I discuss with prospective employers during the hiring phase. My current company also shares some in-house developed applications among other companies free of charge because we want everyone to be as productive as possible. We found a need for a program, created it, then offered it to other companies that we interact with often if they had a need for it as well.