I'm guessing that these guys don't file a lot of copyright and patent lawsuits. Funny how despite the lack of patents and copyright there is so much innovation in malware.

For the life of me I cannot figure out the relevancy of the comment.

David:

Say what? Copyright is an automatic attribute, so you cannot say there is no copyright with malware.

As for patents, how do you know that malware producers have no patents? For that matter, how do you know they are not violating someone's patents?

From a broader viewpoint, criminals have been innovative for a long time. Why should cyber criminals be any different? Applying for any sort of intellectual property protection might be an admission of crime, might it not?

I said that they don't file a lot of copyright and patent lawsuits; I didn't assert they they didn't hold or violate copyright or patents. The point is: they don't have access to the legal system to clamp down on competitors, imitators or copiers. Never-the-less they seem to have adequate incentive to innovate.

Say what? Copyright is an automatic attribute, so you cannot say there is no copyright with malware.

The law only applies to lawful goods (or actions), which malware is not, I don't think.

Having the lawful right to shoot a gun doesn't give a shooter the right to kill someone with it.

Given the motivation of most malware authors, I suspect that they have little desire to use the legal system. However, I believe they have access to the legal system if they want it. I can easily see someone filing a patent application for software that would test the capability of virus check software in a certain way, which is malware if it is used to attack an unsuspecting computer.

Using Bill's gun analogy, you can use a gun to test the effectiveness of bullet-resistant glass, but you would not want to do that to the bullet-resistant glass installed in a bank.