Slashdot Mirror
UK Judge: Who needs software patents?
Glyn Moody writes "C|Net has a surprising story about a seminar given by a top judge at the U.K.'s Court of Appeal who specializes in intellectual-property law. According to the article, he has "questioned whether software patents should be granted, and has criticized the U.S. for allowing "anything under the sun" to be patented." Is the tide turning?"
While this judge's message may seem absurd, remember to pay royalties when you code a progress bar in your application.
... I should e-mail Mr. Andreas and Mr. Foster--the Catholic Church has got deep pockets!
That's right, a whole lot of people owe William S. Andreas and Jeffery P. Foster of IBM a whole lot of money.
Oh, and this was filed in the U.S. but approved by a European patent office so I don't think it's fair for this judge to bash only us Yanks.
My church had a fundraiser once and I believe they used a progress bar on a website to track their earnings
Say, have any of you Java swing programmers ever typed
JProgressBar myJPB = new JProgressBar();
? Because I was thinking of starting a patent lawyer career, I just need you to reply with your name, contact information and the application you used it on and distributed.
My work here is dung.
Software patents are already (technically) not permitted here, and yet crazy inconsistencies and loopholes are allowing people to patent whatever they want. Including software and other things that are explicitly not allowed to be patented. It is good that some people are finally starting to look at this from a sensible point of view. Maybe now some progress can be made on making the patent laws sane.
Santa's suicide mission go!
Is the tide turning?
No. Judges aren't The Borg. One judge's opinion (and that's little-o opinion, not an opinion handed down) is hardly a watershed event.
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
When the patent process actually changes, THEN you can say the tide is turning. Until then, the tide is just growing, like it has been for a long time ...
Though the whole topic of software patents has usually only one solution of abolishing them completely, there were a few good works as well which deserved to be patented for e.g. RSA encryption etc, But these are really very few in number compared to the number of stupid/ridiculous/outrageous patents that are granted.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
just so you can see how retarded the US patent system is, see this santa hat patent
it seems to me that the purpose of the USPTO is not to grant patents but to make money from applications etc
i could probably patent my ass if i tried to
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
/ You look like you are trying to turn \
| the tide. Turning the tide is patented |
| by Microsoft and is not implemented |
| yet. Shall I call the police? Feds? |
\ BSA? /
\ ____
\ / __ \
\ O| |O|
|| | |
|| | |
|| |
|___/
cpu0: Microsoft Clippium ("GenuineClippy" ChromedMetal-Class). Paperbinding, lockpicking, fish-hook-hack support.
"Is the Tide Turning?"
No.
This subversive will be dealt with quickly and harshly. Already the muck rakers are fervently searching for mud to fling at this commu-terrorist.
We are the IP companies. Fire your lawyers and prepare to be sued. We shall add your intellectualy distictive property portfolio to our own. Justice is futile.
This message brought to you in association with: "The USPTO. For a more prosperous, litigious future."
May the Maths Be with you!
The EU Commission are trying to push through software patents again. There's a write-up on Groklaw. I think their idea is to keep trying again and again until we get sick and tired of protesting it.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I concur 100%. If I see Bill Gates or Sam Palmisano (or even Darl McBride hhahaahahahaha) make these types of statements I might change my mind. However, until the powers that be (i.e. the ones w/money buying up and enforcing all these patents) take the necessary measures to fix the problem they have created, I don't foresee any improvement regarding software patents.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
has criticized the U.S. for allowing "anything under the sun" to be patented." Is the tide turning?"
Silly slashdot editor... the moon controls the tide.
The sun don't do nothing.
I agree you should be able to patent a process. However the US system defines no logical limits on such a definition. The RIM Blackberry versus NTP is only one good example. NTP patended the process of sending communication to a device from a server, this is basically the concept of all TCP/IP traffic, however since NTP was successfull in making certain claims they OWN this process, and others must pay royalties to use it, regardless of how obivous it is.
--------------
www.kybe.com
^its an adult text and image search engine i'm working on.
Where is "here" in your case?
Perhaps a compromise is for patent examiners to assign a rating to the patent. For example, C are weak patents, B are medium ones, and A strong ones. If all the "one click" and "same as 1940 except with a computer" patents get a C ranking then judges will be more likely to overturn them.
Judges don't understand technology and generally give the patent office the benefit of the doubt if they don't get something or are confused. A rating system will allow them more leeway to turn down questionable stuff.
Table-ized A.I.
"Is the tide turning?"
Hardly. This judge is in the UK, and is clearly in violation of U.S. Patent #15648663245877954-5468, "Method for Citizens of Foreign Countries to Criticize the United States on Matters of Intellectual Property," filed by my company, Litigious Bastards, Inc., on November 3, 2002. He will be hearing from our lawyers shortly.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
The tide is never going to turn in countries that let themselves be ruled by lobbyists.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The patent system has never been terribly great, but by allowing software patents it becomes an obstacle to development, a costly legal hurdle that has produced a business whose sole purpose is licensing. It's a cruel joke, but because so many of the big players like Microsoft, while being victimized by a corrupted patent system, are themselves players in that very system, using outrageous patents (like the FAT file system) as a means to actually stifle innovation and protect monopolistic practices.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Based on my rollercoaster mod score, I think I need to clarify something. I am *not* saying that the US should not listen to Europe. In fact, I am not even making my preference known in that message.
I am only saying that the US has traditionally danced to its own beat such that what happens in the UK is not likely to make any big impact here. I am just pointing out historical patterns and using mild cheese humor to hilite this.
Table-ized A.I.
It doesn't seem to me that the patent process is inherently ill-suited to software. In fact, it's a far better fit than copyright because of the nature of the resultant work. The patent system requires full disclosure of the invetion (the copyright laws do not) and the term is definite (20 years v at least 70 years for copyright). With the copyright system (the only system left for protection if patents are withdrawn), there is no disclosure, so you end up with DRM to protect access to copyrighted elements even though not all the elements are copyrightable. However, circumventing the DRM to discover non-copyrightable elements is either a violation of the law or it is a violation of the EULA that you agreed to. If the software could only be patented, the applicant would be required to disclose the entirety of the invention and thereby promoting science. It would, by definition, only allow those elements that are protectable to be protected and the patent would clearly disclose what those are. Copyright laws only act to obfuscate the promotion of science.
The problem with software patents is not that patenting is ill-suited but rather that discovery of prior art and laziness by the PTO have resulted in questionable patents being issued. Even this isn't a problem, because when challenged and scrutinized those patents that are bad are discarded and those that are good are upheld. The problem lies in the cost to litigate this - essentially ensuring that the "little guy" must bow to the pressures of the multi-national corporation.
Instead, maybe the PTO should adopt a cheap ex-parte reconsideration procedure (to my knowledge only the applicant can request reconsideration for a patent that is denied) that lasts for the lifetime of a patent where the challenger only needs to present some evidence of a patent-destroying issue. This would eliminate the huge costs of trying the patent in a court of law and make the process a little more fair. If there is evidence of non-obviousness or prior use for a "progress bar" the patent will destroyed, otherwise, why shouldn't the patentee be rewarded for his new and novel invention (it should be to his benefit that such an invention is widely used!)
and Bush Sr. got a big coalition together (including our European allies) for Gulf War I.
That was to stop and undo an outright invasion by Iraq of another country. This time is different because it is not tied to any (confirmed) huge sin by Saddam.
(Actually, what the US should have done in 1992 is annex the Shiite part of Iraq, annex the Kurd portion, which sort of happened by itself anyhow, and leave the Sunni's to stew with Saddam. We would end up with what we will have soon without the bloody civil war.)
Table-ized A.I.
i'm trying to look at the images/drawings for the hat, and it doesn't work. not even if i switch to the USPTO's favorite browser (blue e)
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
That was to stop and undo an outright invasion by Iraq of another country. This time is different because it is not tied to any (confirmed) huge sin by Saddam. You misunderstand me. I meant that previous presidents paid attention to what other countries had to say. I'm not criticizing European nations for not going into Iraq, I think they made the right call there.
God has a patent on the "Hello World" program. We are still waiting for Him to finish His "Goodbye Cruel World" program.
The USPTO grants both DESIGN patents and UTILITY patents. They are completely different animals. A design patent protects only the ornamental appearance of an invention, not its utilitarian features. The santa hat received a DESIGN patent, which is perfectly reasonable. It provides stronger protection against knock-offs, clones, and imitations.
I am not sure the first golf war is an example of that. If anything the US was pushing the idea as much as anybody, perhaps to protect the oil status quo.
Table-ized A.I.
Patents are not the problem. It is ill-equipped patent reviewers and weak reviewing guidelines that are.
Innovative work expressed in software (a virtual machine) should have the same protection as any innovative work expressed in mechanical form (a physical machine). It is the non-obvious innovative work part that the patent office seems to not understand when it comes to software as well as they do when it comes to physical machines.
IMHO, what is needed are stricter rules, guidelines and use of software experts to review software patents.
Many of us *don't* consider something like RSA to be patentable. It's an algoritm, basically just like using a**2 + b**2 = c**2 to calculate the proper length of a diagonal when building a house. Most people would scoff at the idea of patenting the pythagorean theorem, and making home builders everywhere pay a royalty to some random guy who patented it.
For some reason, people are more willing to accept a patent on an encryption algoritm. But, it is basically the exact same thing. Some math, and a description of what to do with it. That's all an algorithm is. Patenting math is non-sensical to a reasonable person. It has been possible to invent and publish new math for years without the benefit of patent protection. So, the notion that patent protection is somehow a prerequisite for the advancement is utter poppycock.
Personally, I have no problem with patents on things. But, algorithms patents should be abolished completely. When you start trying to figure out where to draw the line between pythagoras and RSA, you realise that you should just put the pen away.
No, the tide is not turning, as the Microsoft FAT patent nonsense has demonstrated. There is much outcry on both sides of the pond about software patents. There are frivolous lawsuits in the US, protests in Europe. And now an EU judge has said that patents shouldn't apply to software. So what? This policy, at least in the US, is not determined by public sentiment, nor by obvious negative experiences with patenting software. It's determined by the Congress, and they are in the pockets of media, technology and pharmaceurical corporations. Jack Abramoff's surrender to the Justice Department, which relates directly to Congressional corruption, will have more impact on the issue of software patents than this EU judge. When the dirty money comes out of Capitol Hill, and only then, will we see software patents disappear.
Thats funny, I was always under the impression that the US got into world war 2 after they were attacked, a few years after it started... My history has always been shakey though.
In every discussion like this there is always somebody who don't know the difference between patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets.
Addressing your actual point, up till now the development of computer algorithms has progressed very nicely without much patent protection. It's a bit like saying, "without patent protection, where's the incentive to develop new physics?"
HEre is what Microsoft is pushing for
Sure it does account for no patents at all on software. It does call for better patent quality, a faster and more open system.
If you can't patent code, where is the incentive to research new algorithms.
The fame of having your name immortalized forever in Computer Science textbooks?
A* search algorithm by Peter Hart, Nils Nilsson, and Bertram Raphael.
Bresenham line algorithm
Floyd-Warshall algorithm
etc...
Yes, the tide is definitely turning.
A year ago, this would have been considered ludicruous and impossible. Now it's for real.
UK Judge: Who needs software patents?
Me: Who needs patents?
I'll admit I know zero about IP, but as far as I can tell a software patent is simply a subset of patents, so if you can answer the second question, you'll have you answer for the first. Is the patent really the problem?
Why should anyone be able to patent anything? What differentiates a piece of hardware from a piece of software, aside from the medium in which it is presented?
Erm... We don't want the process to change over here. Right now, software patents are of dubious value at best here in Europe, and one of the few things our European overlords have got right recently is kicking out the attempt to change that.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You can't patent code -- you can patent (for exmaple) an article of manufacture that embodies the code, a method of operating a computer that happens to depend on code, etc.
That, however, is more or less beside the real point. The point of the patent system isn't primarily to encourage research, inventions, etc. Its point is to encourage people to publish their inventions, and to place them into the public domain in return for exclusive rights to them for a short time.
For those who've pointed out that software technology progressed before patents were allowed on software, I'd point out that while this is at least partly true, there are other things to keep in mind. At that time (up through about the seventies or so) software mostly wasn't an industry in itself. Most software was developed by hardware companies like IBM as what they had to do to sell their hardware. Since they saw the hardware as the real product, and the software as having no real value in itself, it was pretty easy for coders to publish what they did.
If there weren't patents today, I'm reasonably certain the situation would be a whole lot different. IBM (to reuse the previous example) has a software business that makes billions of dollars in itself. If they couldn't patent their inventions in this area, my guess is that they would not just publish them and given them away to everybody. Instead, they'd keep them secret.
The patent system is basically an investment on the part of the public. We don't have to put in money (directly) up-front, but we give the inventor some value, and in return we get full rights to their invention (eventually).
As far as bogus patents go: it's true that there are quite a few patents that are basically nonsense. Many aren't really original, and some don't even work at all (e.g. there are currently some in faster-than-light communication). That's more or less par for the course in investments though -- people diversify investments largely because they know at least some things they invest in are going to be complete losers. In addition, keep in mind that what we've given up is the value of the patent for a period of time -- if the patent has no value in the first place, we've given up exactly nothing. In fact, we get even a slightly better deal than that -- the patent office is profitable, so every time a completely bogus patent gets issued, our tax burden (and gov't debt) is reduced by some tiny fraction of a percent.
Admittedly, if you're in the position of the EU (for one example) you're pretty much getting the best of both worlds -- since most real inventions will be patented in the US anyway, you get the benefit of it being published, but without having to give the inventor anything in return.
Given that what we're investing is a limited period of exclusive rights, the real question (IMO) is mostly whether we're investing the right amount of time. This is basically a balance -- if the period of a patent is too short, the inventor is more likely to maintain something as a trade secret instead of patenting it. If the period is too long, we're increasing the cost, and decreasing the payoff. The question is how soon the invention is likely to become obsolete -- if most are obsolete before their patents expire, we're getting a lousy deal.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Thank you for saving me from the irksome task of having to write yet another long and angry comment about the good 'ol RSA patent ;-)
"That type of patenting must be stopped and all previous such obvious patents reversed."
Really agree with you. This has to stop or it will ruin innovation. Patents and trademarks were developed to launch entrepreneurs, not protect vested interests. The whole system has become elitist and un-American. Benjamin Franklin hated patents. He was an open source type of guy. Never took out a patent on his stove. Wanted it for the public good. (Not that his original worked all that well.) But the lightning rod did. Sure hope the worm is beginning to turn.
I am not against patents in general, but this torrent of garbage patents is just legal landfill.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
informational patents are just bunkum. No mater how I look at it, I can't justify patents for software "inventions" or science "discoveries". When is the benefit to the inventor supposed to cede to the greater good, as originally intended in patent law?
“Our opponent is an alien starship packed with nuclear bombs. We have a protractor.” — Neal Stepnenso
You can find many answers here: http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html
A LG (its one of the TOP speeches! The TOP of the TOP in fact. hint - look at the top.)
The text of some of the talks is online in the links.
If you wish to watch a video of the talk he gave in Calgary 2005 May 18 then you can find it here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html#CC
The complete list if talks is found here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html
I would post an answer to the question but to be thorough would require a couple hours and I think Stallman has said it better than I can - so watch the video.
-----------------
In answer to the quesiton of why software patents are more serious than hardware patents - a very simple explanation is that software products incorporate many more ideas than are incorporated in a hardware product. Typically very large companies are behind the manufacturing of hardware and they often can afford the protracted litigation process whereas software companies are small and often undercapitalized.
However the hardware issues also exist and an example of this is the latest patent attack on Toyota on the variable speed transmission used in the Prius. First patents on this idea were issues in 1916 or 1918. Yet a superficial analysis suggests that using two electric motors to drive the planetary gears is considered innovative enough to warrent a patent in the 1980's. Toyota may get around this because they used a gas motor and an electric motor in the Prius.
But this illustrates how silly the patent system has become.
Its not about what is necessarily provable in court - in many respects it is about how much of a financial burden can be imposed through the threat of litigation and for how much the victim can be milked.
A cynic would observe the business of law is conflict and litigation and creating an environment which encourages litigation is good for [the legal] business. Whether this benefits society is not taken into consideration any more than any parasite questions whether its activities are a benefit to its prey. A related example of this phenominon is that non-payment of invoices for goods delivered is considered criminal fraud in Europe whereas in North America it is considered civil and matters that could and should be handled by police in a 1/2 hour end up dragged through the courts for close to a decade at a cost of 10's of 1000's of bux.
Part of this is the legal community serving its own self interest of course. But there are other factions who benefit by supporting a broken patent system and among these we have those who are looking for ways to prevent fair competition as well as those who are just looking for victims to shake down.
If I invent a new device (a physical "thing") I may patent it. Prior art (in the form of other "things") is searched, and if what I have is truly innovative, and fulfils some other criteria, I may be awarded a patent on it.
While patent law was originally designed with this concept of "physical things", the wording (which was clearly intended to ONLY cover "physical things") has been twisted and re-interpreted to apply to other things. There was a time when this wording was circumvented to allow software patents with such phrases as "a processing device (computer) with an organisation of bits in executable memory such that the device accomplishes...". Now, even this thin veil is usually dispensed with, and software patents are more blatant. But all of that aside...
The REAL problem with software patents is that the "prior art" test is virtually impossible to make. The sheer volume of closed-source software out there makes it impossible to truly search prior art, and even if the search were to be limited to open-source plus closed-source contributions to a "prior art" database, an automated search would be virtually impossible, and the task is too large to be done by people-reading-code. The prior art requirement cannot be satisfied reliably, and this is why software protection should be done with copyright (which was originally intended for things like software), not the patent system (which wasn't).
Another large obstacle to the application of patents to software is the problem of testing "obviousness". Software fields are becoming so incredibly diverse and specialised, and invention so technical, that it would often take a highly-trained expert in the particular field of a patent application to differentiate between "trivially obvious" and "stunningly innovative", much less sort out the shades in between. The patent office cannot maintain such a diverse group of experts.
The patent system works (on "things") because it's a good system, well suited to what its (originally intended) purpose. For software, it is an abominable, unworkable solution. The world needs something else, and the majority of the software industry ticks along quite well on copyright. Public innovation is handled by open-source communities, and the leak-out of technologies from the large research giants. Yes, of course it happens... When I leave my current employer, I will take a large chunk of information learned there to my next one, and I'm already bringing it to my open source work. I don't copy code (that would violate copyright, the system meant to protect software), but nobody has the right to prevent me from using what I learn in one place elsewhere (that's how innovation and future development is ensured).
In short, the software community has no use for software patents. There are some individuals and companies who do, but SPs do not further the common good (if you read some of the foundation works of patent law, you will see that the entire point of issuing them is to promote the common good by providing incentives for researchers and inventors to publish their findings).
And no, patent litigation attorneys do not contribute so greatly to the good of the world that we should protect this system purely for the fees they can earn from the overly litigious environment which the "Software Patent" system ensures.
There really isn't too much difference between Bush and Clinton apart from Bush being unable to do sneaky.
Indeed! Clinton knew how to thumb his nose at Europe without *appearing* to be an ahole. W on the other hand....
Table-ized A.I.
Just a moment - can anyone explain how any software (given that "software" essentially just means algorithms that require a computer to execute) could be anything but "abstract ideas"?
It's in Beta.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
Innovative work expressed in software (a virtual machine) should have the same protection as any innovative work expressed in mechanical form (a physical machine). It is the non-obvious innovative work part that the patent office seems to not understand when it comes to software as well as they do when it comes to physical machines.
Not necessarily. The costs are different.
Patents are designed to deal with the realities of physical goods.
It is expensive to produce many plows. It takes a while to produce a factory to make plows. Plows, like most physical products, are pretty simple. So, basically, if I decide that I want to make a better plow in a world without patents, the existing dominant plow manufacturer can easily grab my idea (it's easy to reverse-engineer) and start competing with me long before I've ramped up my production. Also, it takes a lot of capital to compete with them -- someone has to be willing to throw money into establishing a factory. There are only a few improvements that can be easily made to a plow.
This is *not* the case with software production. The lifetime of a copy of software is usually only a few years. Even long-lived software packages, which may survive for twenty or more years, are seriously evolving over that time. Their success does not depend on a single idea, but on continued development. The complexity of software is very high, and thus almost everything can be seen as "patentable" -- software developers are must *constantly* come up with new ideas in the course of writing software.
In software, the person who comes up with an idea can probably write a prototype himself, and it's not unreasonable for many ideas for him to even produce a final product. The cost of distribution is extremely low -- there are plenty of one-man software outfits. This means that you need only sell the package for a short period of time to recoup your R&D investment. Furthermore, the time to reverse-engineer software is lengthy. With a plow, it may take no more than a ten-second glance to see how a new mechanism works. With software, it may take a long time of digging through diassembly to figure out the details of how, say, the Quake IV graphics engine works. Thus, the need to create an artificial monopoly doesn't necessarily exist -- in software, the problem that patents solve is at least partially already solved.
In addition, the very low cost of software distribution enables the concept of free product. Someone can create something without direct monentary compensation. This product will meet the needs of many people -- yet they do not require money to do this. This concept cannot exist in the world of plows, because distribution of plows, the per-unit cost of making each new plow, is significant. A good deal of excellent software was created by open-source volunteers. Patents, which a structure that embraces the established organizations that can supply money to lawyers to file applications and lawsuits, hurt open source a great deal -- far more than they affect closed source.
I'm not trying to make a positive argument that there is no need for software patents here -- I'm just saying that I can easily see how someone could make such an argument. I also don't think that the assumption that patents are equally needed in software is valid.
Finally, it is *really* hard to review patents well. Currently, there is *significant* benefit to making a patent obscure and hard-to-understand. Short of drastic changes, like passing something allowing the USPTO to throw out patents because they are "unclear", there is no incentive for filers to make life reasonable for patent examiners.
Some of the most new and innovative ideas I've seen in software (for example, in the peer-to-peer world) exist without any kind of patent encouragement whatsoever. Software patents would only harm development in this area.
Finally, I just really haven't seen any convincing examples where I feel that patents were really necessa
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Patents : Usage :: Copyright : Distribution
It's people using software that will feel the cost of software patents not so much developers. In principle it could also be used to crush smaller or independent developers, but the real money is in getting the end-users to pay to use their XML-serialization, shopping carts, blogs, etc.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
This is of course a simplification.
The US effectively only comitted troops to World War II after they had been attacked.
Before that time though they were still involved in the war effort, helping to manufacture equipment required and shipping that across to the UK. That remained the limit of their involvement until Pearl Harbour though.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One has nothing to do with the other. We didn't abandon tangible goods in favor of intangible goods. Rather, we lost tangible goods because manufacturing costs were too high. Evironmental compliance, minimum wage, unemployment, workers' compensation - these are costs that business must pay to manufacture within the U.S., but not abroad.
(This is in no way a criticism of the U.S. for that result. I harbor much enmity for foreign countries that are willing to sell out their populations in order to attract corporations. The growth of democracy across the world might help to level the playing field, but it'll take a century.)
In short - the tangible goods market collapsed all on its own. If anything, intangible markets have been used to fill the void. So I maintain: if you want the U.S. to cannibalize its global IP stance and dominance, then you're going to have to propose some other kind of economy to fill in the void.
The proponents have had-by admission- "decades" now to prove their point that the "new economy" would make us all richer somehow, and the results are as you see it, record deficits, record bankruptcies,a severe lessening of national security, an overly inflated currency (so bad they are going to stop reporting most of the M3 stats), and decent jobs that paid well with benefits being replaced with lesser paying jobs with little or no benefits.
We certainly have a host of economic problems. I think that many of them are very directly connected with (1) our wastrel federal government spending and (2) employers' widespread breach of the social contract with employees. I don't think that any of this has to do with what kinds of goods our economy is producing.
Do you have any evidence that modern corporations producing tangible goods treat their employees any better than corporations producing intangible goods? If not, then your argument linking intangible goods with our downtrodden employment market is spurious.
- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
" No, because a baking thermometer does not track progress. During baking the temp usually remains constant." A baking thermometer is used differently than most thermometers. It does track progress. You stick it in a piece of cold meat, put the meat in the oven, and when the center of the meat reaches a certain temp - as indicated by the thermometer - it is done.
I wonder why it has been rated -1 troll, ah right... Americans also don't care what Europeans think
The reverse is probably true also.
The moderators are probably from Europe, that's it
Table-ized A.I.