Slashdot Mirror
Europe Votes Against Software Patents
BrightIce writes "It seems like things are getting better in Europe regarding software patents." The text of that article is in German, but thanks to Sebastian Bunka of Austria for providing me this translation: "On the CONVENTION ON THE GRANT OF EUROPEAN PATENTS all 20 memberstates have
decided to not change the regulations to the patentability of software and
to allow by this basically no patents on software." Else, you can check the fish, but the above is a better translation.
i'm in the business of making money from my code, so i like being able to protect my product and my I.P This decusion makes it almost imposible to do that now, and that can only damage the growing IT market across the EU.
An excellent troll. You're conveniently forgetting many things - firstly, that copyrights protect your ideas from 'theft' in the largest respect. Secondly, that pure mathematical algorithims are still patentable - unlike in America.
While you might moan about 'protection', you'll find that most patent holders are large multinational corporations like IBM. How fair is it to find that you infringe some vague patent of theirs? How fair is it if you publish an innovative image processing method in a journal, then someone else patents your idea, and tries to charge you because the patent office is too fucking lazy to read the appropriate journals?
How can you dare innovate in a market based on fear, uncertainty and doubt - at any time, some IP company with no products of their own comes to sue you because you inadvertently stepped on a patent landmine? Does your product have multitasking? That's illegally patented in the EU. So are CGI scripts on a Web server. So is hardware emulation used for software testing. Breaking down pathnames into directories and files is patented!
There is no doubt in my mind that software patents cause more harm than good. The copyright law, contract law and trade secret law is sufficient protection for software. Using patents on software is an abuse of the patent process.
Does my bum look big in this?
Then don't use GPL'ed code, make your own code. I know it's more expensive in terms of resources, but you can copyright your product then. Using GPL'ed code isn't an argument for patenting, it's moreover an argument for saving money by using existing code written by programmers kind enough not to charge money for it.
That sentence looks like it was written by the fish, too.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
>And Austria recently elected a government that, from what I've read, seems somewhere between Pat Buchanan and David Duke on the political spectrum.
Now, I am from Austria, and I can tell you the freedom party is not even close to pat buchanan.
they are close to Al Gore (from the left side), but still better.
don't misunderstand me. i'am totally against our current governement, i voted green, and i'm with, whenever there is an important demonstration.
but after all, the freedom party is totally against death penalty, and they are not religious at all.
and although they are populist in the campaigns, in office they are more pragmatically.
for example, they campaigned "lifelong must remain live long", but now the minister of justice (fp-member) said lifelong without a good chance to come out after about 20 years is barbaric.
some of their members are xenophobic and racist, but they would never admit that.
anyway, they didn't change immigration policy so much. it is now just as bad as switzerlands.
they campaigned against the eu, but now, they are pro eu-enlargement.
they are right-wing in a european context.
in the usa, they wouldn't be.
Working/residency: sort of free. As long as you've got a job it's easy enough. See this page for a short overview of the issues, from a UK perspective.
Great games
No, it is always protected by copyright; without copyright the GPL has no meaning.
What you are saying is "We use other people's work for free but we then have to do likewise. Pity us". Well, no. If you don't like the GPL then don't use GPL code, make your own and you can keep the "IP" to yourself and good luck to you.
The implication of your whine is that you can't use your "IP" well enough to see off other people who use it, even though you understand it better (since you wrote it) and had it before anyone else. Moreover, anyone that does use your "IP" will have to release their code, which you can then use. What is your problem?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Sometimes EU members vote against EU regulation on matters they agree with, because they believe it should be up to the individual nations to decide.
The whole schebang has to do with "European countries' collective political determination to establish a uniform patent system in Europe." Note, though, that from trawling through Europa earlier today, I get the impression that the final aim - a European Patent - has not yet been reached. So for now, member states signed up to EPO, it may be assumed, will amend their national legislation to match the EPO resolution.
I think you meant "for once" instead of "sometimes". Seriously though, I breathed a sigh of relief when I read this article. Who wants to go down the road of patenting clicking on a button to order and dispatch a product automatically. Then hauling every other e-tailer into court to squeeze as much money out of them. Maybe when the next election for MEP's comes round I won't give my Irish reps such a hard time.
The were all invented in America!
I know this because they're all *right there* when I click on "The Internet", and my computer is here in Virginia!
--
I *invented* pants!
Your code is protected by copyright, which is valid in all countries that have signed the Berne convention, so Microsoft can't just rip it. And if your code has been importen into the US, I guess it can be considered prior art, and thus the algorithm behind it isn't patentable.
Unfortunately, the European contries are at least as xenophobic as US, probably more so. Just about all EU contries have political parties whose main agenda is to keep foreigner out.
Those parties you refer to are really somewhat tame compared to Bush's platform. Oh yeah, they're racist and shit, and when you compare the numbers, you realize that they haven't killed as many people as Mr. Bush with the death penalty.
--
You can not stand against the patent machine of the large multi-nationals or the Patent-it-and-sue-em companies out there
/., I vote progressively. The point being that this "Global Free Market" is BS (and Software patents are just one issue we are farmiliar w/ b/c we are tech types) - The whole goddamn system is going to get ripped down. Now if you have a choice - AND YOU DO - what are you going to do? Be part of the "you cant stand against them - lets goto the mall and masterbate" types who know the system needs big change -OR- someone who says "this is wrong, I refuse to lay down to MultiNationals changing the world to enslave me and everyone else". Simple - its our choice not 'theirs'
Yes - Actually we can, because people elect governments - people make laws. I am very actively 'standing against' large multi-nationals, I protest, I write letters, I rant (obviously) on
Ive made my choice.
The problem is not so much the EU as the European Patent Convention (EPC) and its patent office, the EPO. Most countries are members of both, but some non-EU members are part of the EPC. (And some EU members might leave the EPC - IIRC a German minister (Green party) said Germany would leave the EPC if software patents were allowed.)
Now the Convention specifically excludes computer programs from patentability, but the EPO has managed to bend the law by saying that many computer programs 'are not computer programs as such'. Hence the swpat horror gallery, full of patents on computer programs 'not as such'.
The EPO would like to change the law (the Convention) to remove this exclusion, letting the law 'catch up' with the EPO's bending of it. This would give real weight to the patents already granted, which at present are of dubious validity.
What has happened is that EPC members have voted to wait for the outcome of the European Commission's (ie the EU's) consultation before reaching a decision. This makes it even more important to send your comments on software patents to the Commission and possibly to your national political representatives.
The Commission have commissioned (!) a slightly biased but not totally stupid report on the economic impact of software patents, and are invit ing comments. What the Commission recommends will heavily influence the decision made by EPC members.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
>Patents are what are socialistic; they're about >as blatant a form of industrial policy as >exists. In a true free market, people would be >free to copy someone else's invention and >undercut their price
And why would people bother to create new designs if they were going to be stolen by some large corporation ? We'd all have to work for large corporations in veils of secrecy! No patents are just as bad as too many patents, there is some sort of equilibrium in the middle.
Patents help competition if used appropriately - but just like anything else, they can be abused - the same goes for virtually everything else in society. I am sure there are endless analogies.
The problem is that the "spirit" of patents has been long lost into the quagmire of technicalities, patenting everything and anything and various other forms of abuses. Part of this is the nature of how society is changing, perhaps in the future, patents will be seen as redundant, because society has moved into a new plane where the free flow of ideas is the way to go.
-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net
So that's why the US has the war on drugs...
--
I ate something that disagreed with me. Maybe I should have cooked him first.
At least while sober. :-)
I think in Europe, people are a little more tolerant to others moving to their countries, and are aware of the fact that their country is not the only one in the world.
Hardly. Both France and Germany have very active and militant anti-immigrant political parties. And Austria recently elected a government that, from what I've read, seems somewhere between Pat Buchanan and David Duke on the political spectrum.
It's probably the same as the hypocrisy in the way people think of Canada and Mexico in the US. You're only considered an immigrant if you're poor, the wrong color, and speak the wrong language.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
No, copyright would protect my product and code from theft, but it would not stop another person simply copying a clever or inventive solution to a problem. For example, if i produce a system that allows a user to visualise a certain problem, there is nothing to stop someone from riping this idea off, and possibly implementing it as an Open Source application. That undercuts my product by a large margin, and in the end it serioiusly undermines my effort to make a living.
T. Lee
AMEN!
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
It should be "Useless Corrupt Tw*ts at the EU Finally Manage to do Something Right, but it was Probably an Accident."
Denmark did not change its constitution. The constitution already grants the parliament the right to give up some national independence after a referendum (which is why the Danes have to vote on each EU treaty).
Whether EU law or national law takes precedence in Denmark is somewhat unclear.
Patents are what are socialistic; they're about as blatant a form of industrial policy as exists. In a true free market, people would be free to copy someone else's invention and undercut their price.
Unfortunately, the European contries are at least as xenophobic as US, probably more so. Just about all EU contries have political parties whose main agenda is to keep foreigner out. These parties usually get about 10% of the vote, sometimes more (like in Austria). They have a huge influence as the mainstream parties try to adopt their politics in order to compete for the same narrow minded part of the poulation. In Denmark, all the popular parties compete on who can be toughest in foreigners, and the most popular stories in the media are about criminal foreigners or decendents of foreigners.
Of course, "foreigner" does not include other EU citizens, or even North Americans. It is only Moslems and Africans and poor people in general who "we" want to keep out.
1) Celcius. That whole Farenheit thing is stupid. It makes much more sense for the temperature of water to freeze to be 0. I don't want this Farenheit B.S. anymore.
2) Metric system. All of our cars (that last more than 3 years) are built using this system of measurement. Our cars have kilometers per hour below miles per hour. Our drugs are measured in this system. It is a much easier system to remember, and is much better organized than the crazy crap we use.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this already attempted once before? If I remember correctly, I think what happened was that a bunch of morons started shooting down roadsigns, etc.
Not that I'm saying that it'd automatically be doomed to failure, if it were attempted again. I'm just saying that you should wait for that sector of the population to die out before attempting to reimplement metric.
A much better idea would be to start replacing existing signs, etc., with a dual system, whereby information is listed in both imperial and metric.
Even then, I wouldn't be too optimistic. Forgive my Canadian bias, but Americans just don't seem all that flexible in this regard. It would require changing school curriculum, and seeing as what's taught to children appears to be a somewhat taboo topic.. (just look at the arguments over creationism) I doubt you're going to be able to get the population to change, unless something drastic happens. (And I mean something drastic. Look how little came of the Columbine shootings; instead of going after the source, or trying to figure out the truth, you see the media and the police demonizing a whole innocent sector of the population. I get the sense that, even if something on the scale of Golipoli happened to a group of Americans due to an imperial/metric mixup, they'd find some way to shrug it off as a result of poor schooling by their teachers, or blame it on the shoes they were wearing.)
In the meantime, if you're interested in moving to a place that uses metric, I should point out that Canada's always an option. We've had metric for a good while now, and for a lot of us, it's the only one we know. (Although there are quite a few imperial mainstays. There's a tendancy to measure peoples' height in feet and inches, still, and the same with building materials. But other than that, and meat being weighed by the pound..)
I've another similar question.
Imagine that I create this wonder gadget (not software, but something else) and patent it in a small country (say Sweden). Can another company or person take this idea and patent it in the rest of the world?
> America's where all the software innovation
> comes from. Witness Microsoft
*coff*
You know, the last I heard, Linux was written in Scandinavia. Scandinavia is nowhere near America, it never has been and it never will be.
Engage brain, yanky boy.
Is that a Business plan patent?
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
Hm... you probably missed the point - the whole concept of "intellectual property" is something, that should not be taken for granted but rather reconsidered again. Maybe we got something wrong here. Maybe it has gone too far - from protecting you from others claiming that they invented your invention to making it illegal for others to see what your invention is about and use it.
Now, the former is OK but the later is insane and slows down the progress.
Here you go, the most STUPID patent I've ever seen...
from: http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05443036__
Issued/Filed Dates: Aug. 22, 1995 / Nov. 2, 1993
Application Number: US1993000144473
Abstract: A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a chase instinct.
Primary/Assistant Examiners: Manahan; Todd E.;
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Transmeta.com
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
If you would like to know more about (software) patents (and you ought to if you if you are in the software business and live in Europe), here is some links:
SSLUG (Skåne Sjælland Linux User Group) has created an article called "Software patents - No thanks!". You can find it here.
"The EuroLinux File on Software Patents" also has a lot of information right here
Greetings Joergen
I'm no expert on the EU but I would be very surprised if the EU wasn't trying to move towards harmonization on patent laws as it is in many other areas. So while existing may not be affected the ability to patent software in the future will be - hence its importance.
Paul M
"There are no innocent bystanders. What where they doing there in the first place"
Paul M
"There are no innocent bystanders. What where they doing there in the first place"
William S Burroughs
This is concerned with EU law. Not national law.
There is nothing to stop any country in Europe enacting a law about software patents.
In any case, the good news is actually no such thing, since software patents already exist in Europe; for example, the lzw patent, which affects gifs, plus many thousands of other software patents, are effective in many European countries (mainly Britain, for strategic, rather than legal reasons).
Free Anne Tomlinson!!
Ok, so the EU have ruled against Patents for Software. I'm still confused about the whole legal aspect of patent infringement, and how whatever "International Treaties" that may exist affect this area of the law.
Let's say I start a computer software company here in England, and my product includes a feature that is the subject of some silly United States patent. Can I freely market that product everywhere but the United States without fear of being chased by the patent owners lawyers?
If so, and I then decide I do want to sell into the United States, can my "license fee" then only apply to copies sold in the United States?
Or what?
Regards,
Confused of the Thames Valley, United Kingdom.
Boy, I'm sure glad there is some good sense in this world. We're finally getting politicians to understand the blatently dangerous consequences of patenting software. What's next? The United States? Ye gods, I hope so.
And let's not go off and start up about this only effecting EU. Because you have to understand the international treaties are two-way streets. I mean, America isn't the only place where if a law is enacted, other countries follow. EU has a lot of influence, and this is definetely good news, even in America.
I would have liked to see them extend this wisdom to bio patents, but unfortunately they decided not to discuss that.
Good to see that European politics sometimes DOES make sense :-)
Bruxelles, Copenhagen, London, Madrid, Munich, Paris. 2000-11-22. With the exception of Austria, Lichtenstein and Switzerland, all European countries voted in Munich yesterday against an extension of the patent system to software. The exception on computer programs will be maintained in the European Patent Convention after its revision. This move is a clear victory for democracy, since it allows the European Commission to proceed with its public consultation on software patents, together with the European Parliament. National governments in Europe which are currently reviewing in detail the pros and the cons of an extension of the patent system to software, will also be able to participate the debate.
Nicolas Pettiaux, belgian representative for the EuroLinux Alliance of software publishers and non profit organisations, warns however that "yesterday's vote should not be interpreted as a vote against software patents, but rather as a vote to postpone any decision on this matter until the consultation launched by the European Commission is closed". But, according to Stéfane Fermigier of AFUL, member of EuroLinux: "the General Directorate for Internal Market at the European Commission, which is in charge of the consultation, has approached the software patent issue with an ideological point of view. Both their interpretation of the Law and their call for the consultation are obviously biased in favour of software patents. Furthermore, until very recently, they paid no attention to the economic effects and to other side effects of software patents, as they should have according to the Rome and Amsterdam Treaties. We are still very far from a decision to ban software patents in Europe."
Future EuroLinux actions will be targeted at convincing the European Commission to take a balanced approach on software patents. As the FFII/EuroLinux Software Patent Horror Gallery shows, the European Patent Office is already abusively granting many patents on pure software methods. Such kind of patents are then cancelled by national courts in case of dispute. A clarification is still needed in Europe, either in favour or against software patents. EuroLinux considers that software patents should clearly be banned in Europe because they harm innovation and that software should be protected through copyright.
ReferencesEuropean Patent Office - http://www.european-patent-office.org ;
Software Patent Horror Gallery - http://petition.eurolinux.org/examples Statements for Software Patent Free Europe - http://petition.eurolinux.org/statements The EuroLinux Public Consultation - http://petition.eurolinux.org/consultation
The EuroLinux Petition for a Software Patent Free Europe - http://petition.eurolinux.org
The EuroLinux File on Software Patents - http://petition.eurolinux.org/reference
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Europe - for smart people [tm]
This is a victory for the free software world, even in the United States. It demonstrates that someone out there has a clue, and (perhaps more importantly) that other countries aren't just going to roll over and adopt the US's unique brand of stupidity.
I wonder if the BushGore fiasco has had anything to do with it (i.e. "those Yanks can't even vote in a president, why should we let them dictate our trade policies?").
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Heh heh. Dream on! To name a few, where did Linux, SSH, WWW, C++ originate?
Hell, even John Von Neumann was from Europe!
But, the problem doesn't go entirely away. You might not be able to patent the software per se, but you might very well patent a method to get from A to B, which - oh gosh - happens to be implemented with software.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
First, GPL code is protected by copyright, and thus, your companies code is too, you are just
forced to allow it to be copied under certain conditions.
Second. I believe if you release the code under GPL, you are automatically giving a license to anyone who wants to use/modify the released code
(the code is still under GPL of course)
Relevant sections of the GPL:
From the Preamble:
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
Further down under the terms and conditions section 7:
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
You should probably get advice from a lawyer before depending on this.
(I didn't mean to post the last one anonymously.)
It may be just me, but I think that what is good for open source software is good for "continued software development" as you put it. It is a mistake to think that open source software will go anywhere when it is written by a bunch of amateur geeks in their spare time. This is not the case with Linux or Apache, nor can it be an effective method of software development.
Rather what occurs is that businesses (some of whom charge money for the service) contribute to such projects. The market model is fundamentally different because the programmer charges for services, rather than making money on royalties.
It is my opinion that this market model is more stable, in part because maintanance programmers always outnumber programmers that program software for sale. In the US, 95% of programers are maintance programmers. In this way, these programmers can more easily create in-house applications based upon Open Source software then they can with propriety software. Furthermore this development power can be harnessed to produce better software faster that better meets the end-user's needs.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I am opposed to patents in general, but it would be less of an issue if people were more honest about what patents are for. Cloaking patents in terms such as "property" confuses the issue. The goal of patents is to promote innovation by giving inventors exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited amount of time. If it's admitted that patents are an attempt to increase innovation, we can discuss them on pragmatic grounds: where are they needed, what qualifies as sufficiently novel, what the terms should be in particular instances, and so forth. Instead, because of the word "property" a lot of people are convinced to believe that there's somehow an inherent right to a patent of the same degree as the right to own personal property.
If there are going to be patents at all, I don't see any particular reason why a patent couldn't apply to a particularly innovative software-based mechanism if it's determined that that's what's needed to encourage innovation. But the rules should be analogous to those for hardware inventions; software patents as they exist today undoubtedly have the opposite effect. Part of that is because of the incremental innovation that's so common in software, where using components as building blocks for other components is a common method of construction, and part of it is due to the proliferation of really trivial patents that just create barriers.
However, even if the goal is to be stimulation of innovation, we should look at it more closely; merely stimulating innovation doesn't necessarily result in progress. If people are stimulated to merely seek slight variations on the same theme in order to grab a patent, it isn't terribly productive, and likewise if people have to spend a lot of time working around existing patents.
Could some European country please conquer us here in America.
If that's what it would take to get rid of US software patents, I'm all for european hegemony.
It's a great move. As it allows software to keep its development dynamics. And it will allow to have several properietary forms on binaries and sources. With a system of patents this would lead objectively to a stall in some critical points of development.
Of course this will not satisfy those who see a copyright claim not enough for protection. And this does not mean only corporations and cash-hungry egoistic personalities. This means small developers that want to get some money from an hard and original work.
I'm a anti-patent partisan. But I believe that anyone has the right to distribute his work under the conditions that fit most his interests. And it is pretty clear that stamping "My Copyright #### - All rights reserved" is not enough for protection. So how to get out of this?
Patent protection is a nonsense in software and even most hardware systems. However the software product is something real and which allows to evaluate the cases when someone grabs unlawfully its code. Besides software has a property that other Works of Art don't possess. It can be reproduced with a 99% accurancy. So why not to create a Software Depositary where people who wished to protect their works, would keep an copy of their original work? In cases of plagiates, theft, piracy, this would help a lot in litigation processes. Besides it would not hamper development. If someone makes a parallel discovery then he also gets the right to give life to it.
One interesting point. Such institution would not need to see the original code to process registration. Microsoft could well bring all Windows source code in a sealed box and claim it when it wanted to sue someone. However if such things would be there then this institution should have a building stronger than Cheyenne Mountain.
Let me ask the inverse, since the ostensible purpose of patents is to encourage innovation: how are patents good for this industry?
Having studied EU law, I can tell you that at present there is no harmonization. In particular, a judgment of the [ECOJ] court in 1994 affirmed that Article 113 of the EC Treaty *did not* cover intellectual property.
Since then, Article 133 has been introduced, but this only covers intellectual property disputes, and not law per se.
Free Anne Tomlinson!!
either way, score one for the good-guys...
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
>[...]
>At least we in North America will benefit from software companies re-locating
> here to produce and sell thier products.
I don't think that companies could be arsed to move to US... It's yet just another sample of the BS you're all full of (in a more or less amount).
Go figure - could you make Siemens fly over to US? and land where? Get real man. After all Canada sounds a better choice for that - if it was to move headquarters - though no company it its right minds will ever attempt it. Why? "ECONOMICS" is the answer - the prices would so much sky-rocket that if it would be the only company on Earth producing whatever they'd produce - still no one would by from them.
However - if you're asking for a reality check - here it is - check what's going on with US (yes U.S.) companies that are having their development HQ located in Cyprus... Ha?! do I hear why are they doing that? because US is so great? I'd rather say "au contraire"(Fr.).
Conclusion: There is a world beyond US borders - sometimes better sometimes worse - but you are *NOT* the center of the world - much as you show your muscles to anyone caring enough to look at you. Learn some geography, learn some economy and then talk. TROLL!
--
even though it is still a little dicey for the EU to start taking over such things on a continental basis.
As a contrast, imagine patent law in the USA if all 50 states had their own patent offices. It gets scary very quickly.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
You seem to imply that socialism is wrong, and that is to ignore some of its positives. However I'm not about to declare that capitalism is wrong, as it too have advantages. The answer, as it always is, is somewhere down the middle - enough capitalism to reward excellence and hard work. Enough socialism to stop explotation and poverty.
Nice to see that not all governments are entirely brain dead or totally owned by corporations.
There are too many stupid patents being granted. There's even a patent for using a flashlight/laser pointer to play with a cat! I kid you not.
Now the EC needs to strike down the horribly Tony Blair RIP bill that not only allows police to raid your computer for data, but makes it a crime not to hand over your encryption keys on request.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Now, this is clearly all rubbish, because small business's do come up with a lot of the inovative idea and they do secure valid patents on those ideas.
And multinationals do use their bank of trivial patents to force small companies to 'cross license'. So there's no real protection for small companies.
Much as I do love to whore for karma, my time is precious - you'll have to come up with better than that to continue the trolling.
Does my bum look big in this?
...but here in Ireland, in an unusal show of foresight, they introduced a dual system back in the seventies. Then when the EU decided to go fully metric, we could litterally do it overnight.
Maybe you should make it clear that it's not Americans en masse, or even the majority of American who oppose metric. It's the vocal, heavily armed and influential sections of American society. That includes the American media - my God! (Do you take CNN and those other tabloid trash tv stations seriously? They don't tell you just the facts, they draw conclusions and cram opinions down your throat at a mile a minute. The American media scares me just because it's so biased and able to influence the liberal sections of society).
Anywho, America could, can and will change - it just won't happen over night. Give 'em 50 years or so. (I hope that they realise metric actually isn't a Communist plot...but part of me hopes they stay Imperial and crash n' burn - I'll never forgive Americans for making 'Sulfur' the accepted spelling for 'Sulphur' in science circles.)
Concrete analysis...
... we just didn't tell you yet!
Ireland - you all stood by while modified our constitution and defined our nation in terms of people, now you're OURS!.
(Damn, now the Dublin Secret Milita will probably break my legs). 8)
Concrete analysis...
Then you must really get pissed off at the internet, 'cos it usually says things were invented by an Englishman or an American. (I'm not saying that's wrong....if mother M$ wants it that way, I'll conform....for now)
8)
Concrete analysis...
This decision is actually only temporary. The EU is waiting for the end of a large consultation which should end december, 15. As such, the EU decided not to precipitate. But the issue is not solved yet.
My company adapts GPL'ed code. Since this is usually impossible to protect with copyright, we are forced to use patents for our modifictions to protect our IP. But we can only sell outside Europe, because we can't patent our improvements there, so they spread like crazy, and there is no legal way we can stop it.