Plan for voting machine probe dropped after lawsuit threat (nj.com)

I should say that Stallman's arguments concerning binary code still hold water, IMO. Because
of the nature of software, compiled code is really derivative (and lesser than) the actual
source code. What you're buying is really just a service, because since you have almost zero
practical ability to manipulate the software, you're de facto subject to the vendor's whims;
it has no resaleable or potential capacity for additional marginal value in itself.
Philosophic notions of property were that rights were granted--and other's restricted--to
allow the purchaser (aka rights holder; you were purchasing rights)--to improve upon the
product; if you have no ability to improve upon it, it's not consonant to say that you bought
property, because the concept of property is predicated on this societal benefit.

Intellectual Property Law only compounds this fact, of course, so that its even further
removed from traditional notions of property (which were never about physical objects, mind
you, but about rights and interests between people). The notion of benefit has been turned on
its head. You're not protecting the rights of the person purchasing something, but of the
person selling something. You're not ex ante promoting innovation and investment into a
particular thing, but ex post rewarding somebody who already did the work.

Maybe thats okay, and "IP" has its own internal logic, but its not consistent with the
definition of "property". In fact, it's much more consistent with the purpose of Contract Law,
where the idea is to entice people to exchange, and to give legal effect to their promises.
It's just a shame people, and jurists, conflate these ideas.

Anyhow, that's my opinion. IANAL, and my law professors think I'm cuckoo.