On the issue of copyright being a good thing, wasn't the reason that microsoft did so well was that IBM when they started out making PCs, let other people clone them and therefore they became the dominant computer in the workplace even though Apple had the better system. Surely letting people distribute your product more widely (within limits) is good for your company after all there will be some products that they would need to get from the parent company?
Yes, but you can't copyright a turing machine, or any other physical device other than a distinctive 3D image, or a distinctive smell (i.e. the smell of lynx is copyright, as is the smell of gas)...
The BIOS was originally copyright and it was up to Compaq, American Megatrends, Award, Phoenix, etc. to emulate this.
That said, they could have PATENTED it, which they didn't.
Things that I think should not be copyrightable:
-ICs (the die is often copyright)
-Genetic Code
- 3D shapes
Things I think should not be patentable, which are:
- Software devices
- Medicines
-Various other chemical processes
- Probably much more
---
I tend to subscribe to a mixture of Richard Stallman's philosophy on copyright, and then some slightly more traditional views also. Copyright should only be their to encourage innovation amongst the people.