When does software copyright expire on defunct products (i.e. Lotus 1-2-3)
<p>There are a lot of people still using "defunct" software such as Lotus 1-2-3 and Lotus Organizer.  We also use existing software today that will be cancelled in the near future but may still have market value - just not to the copyright holder.</p>

<p>Is there any obligation on the part of the copyright holder to actually provide the material that they are protecting, or is it legal to simply "sit on" it and refuse to allow the world to buy or sell their defunct software?</p>

<p>i.e. had Apple held their slide-to-open patent, and then never provided it to the public for usage, could they legally simply prevent the planet from ever using slide-to-lock?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Is there any obligation on the part of the copyright holder to actually provide the material that they are protecting</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>is it legal to simply "sit on" it and refuse to allow the world to buy or sell their defunct software?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>could they legally simply prevent the planet from ever using slide-to-lock?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Not really, depending on what "legally prevent" means. Other companies could simply ignore the patent, then wait for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co." rel="nofollow noreferrer">the lawsuit</a>. As soon as the lawsuit arrives they can either settle, or have the court decide the damages and fees they owe.</p>

<p>Similarly, people and companies can use <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware" rel="nofollow noreferrer">abandonware</a> and hope the copyright holder either doesn't care, doesn't have the means to take legal action, or that the eventual settlement won't be too expensive.</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Copyright duration</a> depends on the country of first publication and, for its protection in other countries, whether those countries observe the rule of the shorter term or not.</p>

<p>For Lotus 1-2-3 I’m guessing that this was published by a corporation in the USA so it is protected for 95 years from that date.</p>

<p>There is no obligation on a copyright holder to make their works available. People who own a licence may be able to transfer that licence if the licence allows this. </p>

<p>Patents last for <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent" rel="nofollow noreferrer">20 years</a> from the date of filing - they also do not need to be used.</p>

<p>There are three inter-related issues present in your question:</p>

<ul>
<li>Licenses</li>
<li>Copyright</li>
<li>Patents</li>
</ul>

<p>The user who purchased software such as Lotus 1-2-3 purchased a license to use the product, not the product itself. In the case of software that is no longer supported there is, usually, still an entity that owns the right to license the product. In the specific case of Lotus 1-2-3, IBM owns those rights because IBM acquired Lotus in 1995. Here is the <a href="http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&amp;infotype=an&amp;appname=iSource&amp;supplier=897&amp;letternum=ENUS913-091" rel="nofollow noreferrer">announcement from IBM</a> announcing their withdrawal and discontinuance of support for Lotus 123. In that announcement you will see that the products are licensed under the "<a href="https://www-03.ibm.com/software/sla/sladb.nsf/pdf/ipla/$file/ipla_en.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">IBM International Program License Agreement</a>." The rules about what you may or may not do with the software will be contained in that license.</p>

<p>While IBM may have withdrawn support for Lotus 123, they don't appear to have abandoned their rights regarding licensing of the product.</p>

<p>IBM also owns the copyright to the Lotus 123 product. The copyright grants certain protections to the copyright holder. One of those protections is the ability to prevent people from making copies of the software and further distributing them.</p>

<p>The IBM International Program License Agreement prohibits a licensee from distributing copies of the software product. Copyright law prevents anyone from distributing copies of the software product for the life of the copyright without the permission of the copyright holder.</p>

<p>There is the allowance for fair use under U.S. copyright law that, for example, allows the owner, in most cases a licensee of software, to make copies for backup or archiving purposes.</p>

<p>Another method that software authors use to protect their intellectual property is a patent which protects an invention. If Lotus 123 contained such a patent then other developers would be prohibited from implementing the patented process without permission of the patent holder.</p>

<p>Withdrawing support for a product doesn't change any of the terms of the license agreement, nor does it change the expiration date of the copyright or any patents located within the software.</p>

<p>One very common business model for "selling" software is to license its use to the market and offer support as either an add-on purchase or something included in the original price for a set time period. For the case of Lotus 123, and most other software products, these are distinct offerings and it's not uncommon for a software company to withdraw their support offering from the market. Withdrawing that support in no way affects the terms of the license agreement.</p>

<p>In this specific case, it is against the license terms for any licensee to re-sell the software outside the terms of the license so, technically, there are no "licensed" copies of the software that can be sold without the license. Copyright law would prevent a non-licensee from distributing copies of the software without permission of the copyright holder.</p>

copyright software licensing