You still have to try the exercise of imagining the value of software innovation would be without patents.
You don't need to do exercises for that. You just have to look at existing studies on the motivations of software companies to innovate, for example this presentation of a study performed by the Fraunhofer Institute (owners of the MP3 patents) and the Max Planck Institute. Have a look at slide 15. Patents are the least used way to protect software development, especially in the "primary sector" (= software development sector in their study, the secondary sector was for them companies whose primary purpose is not to develop software, but who also do it to e.g. steer their washing machines etc.)
You don't need software patents to protect investments in software development and RD, and at the same time software patents held by others can completely undermine any investments you made.
I don't say the patent system is perfect. I just say it is the best we have.
No, it is not, especially not as far as software innovation is concerned.
Do you honestly think the big guys are really interested in a few tens (hundreds) thousands lines of code or a bunch of engineers? No, they are after their innovative ideas, i.e. their patents. No patent, no cash.
It's true that big companies try to amass as many patents as possible, but that has nothing to do with wanting to get access to innovative ideas they wouldn't come up with themselves. It's called strategic patenting, for both offensive (keep others out of the market) and defensive (make sure others can't keep you out of the market) purposes.
If there weren't any patents, smaller companies would be picked based on their ability to turn great ideas into great products, instead of based on their ability to turn basic ideas into broad patents.
Having a few big companies fighting each other over patents is actually not that bad. The little guy will have some bargaining power by threatening to sell his patent to some other company.
And what if the little guy isn't interested in acquiring patents for EUR 40,000 a piece, but simply wants to develop great software? And what's so great about companies spending millions on litigation instead of on R&D?
Having big companies interested in funding research department is not that a bad idea either. Where else do you expect innovation to come from?
Spending much on patents is completely different from innovating a lot. Have a look at e.g. this study (ppt slides) which shows that it's not the innovators that get most patents. Also look at this arcticle by the senior VP of IBM, where he bluntly states that
It would be naive for any company (or for that matter, any country) to assume that amassing patents for patents' sake is a meaningful measure of success. Invention only matters when it positively transforms an institution, a business, a society or our lives. Rather than numbers, it's the application of invention--coupled with deep insight, experience and even intuition--that results in genuine innovation.
You don't need patents to encourage insightful applications, experience and intuition. If anything, they hamper that. Companies will not stop pouring money into software research and innovation if they can't get patents for that. After all, they already did that before they could get them, and they also have to continue doing that to remain competitive. If they stop innovating, they will fall behind in the race for the customer.
Note that I'm not claiming that the most innovative company always has the highest market share, there are obviously other fac
No, he's saying exactly what empiricalstudies show. The only person that hasn't backed up his claims until now in this whole discussion is you. That's probably because there are no empirical studies that show that software patents have mainly positive effects.
It's nice of you to cite some patents in support of your arguement, but there's a difference between actual granted patents and whether those patents are enforceable due to novelty / inventiveness.
And exactly how many open source projects (or SME's) can afford a $US 2 million lawsuit to prove that a patent is invalid? Even if you suppose that such a lawsuit would cost 10 times less in Europe, it's still way too high for most companies and projects to pay (and then they would have to pay this per patent, always with the risk that they may lose).
You're citing 1991 and 1978 texts in support of your arguments? Please! Vicom and State Street Bank are mid to late 1990's decisions and supercede what goes before it.
The 1991 law is a European copyright directive and cannot be superceded by a decision of the EPO's TBA. And as I've said before: the basic principle of patents is even much more older than that, from before people even had the slightest idea about a computer or computer programs.
Things have moved on since '78 and '91. I'd like to refute some points in your arguments,
Please start with the economical one. That should be the basis of this law, since patent law is an economical law. You know, if software patents would be a good thing for economy and innovation, you wouldn't be seeing press releases from 2,000,000 SME's protesting against them and all these other actions.
but to try to and finese on the meaning of "as such" would take more effort than I care to outlay.
Don't worry about that, I've gone over that in fine detail with someone from the Commission already. I perfectly know the finesses and even got an admittance that in the end as far as their proposal is concerned, everything boils down to what is considered technical and what not, and that they do not clarify what is technical and what is not in any way.
So they simply want the EPO to be able to continue to use its own definitions, which makes pretty much everything technical (and thus patentable).
If a software patent was valid for say 3 years after filing this should give a good head start to any bright ideas and make it possible for the market to get full interoperability/documentation within reasonable time.
That's not allowed by the WTO TRIPs treaty, all patents "for inventions in all fields of technology" must be subject to the same conditions.
Anyway, you already have a head start. If you introduce a new super-duper program, how long is it going to take for the competition to reverse engineer it, make their own implementation (if they just copy it, they infringe your copyright), test it and sell it? Thanks to copyright and trade secret, you already have a head start.
The trade secret part obviously doesn't work as well for things like interface ideas and business methods, since they are immediately public by virtue of their nature (although you still have to re-implement them completely). Then again, a patent is supposed to give society information in return for a monopoly to the creator. In this case, the information is already in the hands of society, so why would it still grant a monopoly?
That's exactly why software patents are a lawyer's and mindless CFO's wet dream: yhey have to innovate anyway (otherwise they can't compete), were going to publish their innovation anyway (what's the use otherwise?), and now they can get a monopoly on it "for free" (minus patent costs, but society doesn't profit from those costs). You get something for nothing!
You also failed to understand the differences between copyright and patents - EPO practice still excludes computer programs "as such" from protection by patents.
No, you fail to understand what a "computer program as such" is (just like the EPO purports to nowadays). The software copyright directive from 1991 explicitly states that a computer program includes
"the permanent or temporary reproduction of a computer program by any means and in any form, in part or in whole. Insofar as loading, displaying, running, transmission or storage..."
The EPO examination guidelines from 1978 (if you think that's old and outdated, then just think of how much older and outdated the whole principle of patents is) agree:
A computer program may take various forms, e.g. an algorithm, a flow-chart or a series of coded instructions which can be recorded on a tape or other machine-readable record-medium, and can be regarded as a particular case of either a mathematical method (see above) or a presentation or information (see below). If the contribution to the known art resides solely in a computer program then the subject matter is not patentable in whatever manner it may be presented in the claims. For example, a claim to a computer characterised by having the particular program stored in its memory or to a process for operating a computer under control of the program would be as objectionable as a claim to the program per se or the program when recorded on magnetic tape.
Additionally, since they are introducing program claims, they are allowing claims (and thus patents) on a program as such, even according to your (and the EPO's) non-sensical definition.
In general, I agree with many people here that shutting down websites is pretty much a useless idea. All it will do is inconvenience the protestors themselves.
It also mobilises people and gets you media attention. That is not useless, it's actually one of the most important things to do. Getting media attention is winning half the battle.
Instead, why don't those groups, websites, and institutions who oppose the patent laws generate a public database where the general public can add every conceivable patent idea they can think of. Then submit them (or propose to) for patent. Make the results/repercussions visible should the patents go through.
A single patent costs between 40,000 and 60,000 Euro to obtain. With the cost of one patent application, we can do a lot of high profile actions and conferences.
What is next on the agenda, protesting ownership of property?
You're missing the point, we're protesting in favor of existing "intellectual property". Software patents completely undermin the property rights you get thanks to copyright. It's useless to have the right to sell your own creation thanks to copyright, if you're prohibited from doing it because your program infringes on 20 software patents.
I'm not pessimistic, just a realist, with no grand illusions.
You actually do have an illusion, namely that you think you are a realist.
You've obviously bought into the lie, and didn't read my entire post. Obviously, if there were _no_ apparent victories, however significant-seeming, to maintain the illusion of ability to affect large issues, that would shatter the illusion, and possibly affect the flow of wealth and power.
Oh puh-lease, get off your tin foil hat. You really think the 625 MEPs (or at least 400 or so) are in one giant complot?
They throw a few crumbs to the noisemakers, meanwhile keeping a stranglehold. Keep them pacified with an illusion of relevancy and ability to change things. You win battles, but lose the war. Those wielding the power will _never_ allow their power base to be threatened in any meaningful way. They would nuke their own populaces before they would allow themselves to be stripped of power.
Not everyone in the European Parliament got there mainly thanks to support by big companies. They don't need millions of euro's to campaign in half a continent. These people's supporters come from their own backyards, in a matter of speaking. Belgian MEPs care about the Belgian companies, not about Microsoft. 60% of ICT workers in Belgium work in an SME. You're correct in the sense that politicians care about who supports them, but in Europe of small countries and provinces, that support mainly comes from different corners than in the US.
In case of software patents, it's simply a matter of making the MEPs understand. The proponents like IBM and Nokia basically say "This is way too difficult for you, but trust us, it's good for us and good for SME's as well". We go to them and make them understand that in fact it's not difficult at all and show them press releases by organisations representing 2,000,000 SME's that say it would not be good for them.
But yes, if it makes you feel better and if you prefer just griping about how everything is corrupt and how you cannot change anything, go ahead. If you can't deal with the heat and with the fact that you may fail, just crawl back under your rock. But please spare us you "advice", because all you seem to want is to be a sad self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sorry for the ad-hominem, but I'm sick of cowards like you who have nothing better to do than just complain about how bad everything is and how they pity the people that do something, while they don't have the guts to do anything themselves because of the fear that they may lose (sorry: the knowledge that they will lose, since they're realistic).
Software patents are good things. It's the fact that frivolous patents are awarded that are too expensive to contest that is the real problem here.
This is an often heard argument, however how do you propose to make an objective rule to distinguish frivolous/overly-broad patents from others? You might be interested in read this discussion between a programmer and the deputy director of the UK Patent office. The latter concludes with:
However, they [patent examiners who are also programmers] might express the communication problem the other way around - it's very difficult to persuade programmers that just because an invention is "easy", does not make it any less patentable.
Perhaps I misunderstand the terminology used here. However, sir_cello, are you certain that a patent is what you use for protection of "an algorithm as embodied in a software program"?
Software patent proponents often have difficulty explaining all their strange reasonings. I think what he wanted to say, is that you cannot patent a particular digital signal processing algorithm, but you should be able to patent it as a
system and method comprising a digital input whereby said input is coupled to a processing means and memory means, providing a digital [video/sound] signal via said signal input to said processing means, whereby said processing means executes the process set forth here:
<description of abstract form of the digital signal processing algorithm>
So now you have not patented the digital signal processing algorithm, but only the use of that algorithm when executed by a computer to process video or sound data. So you are still free to do the signal processing with your brain, with pencil and paper or on randomly generated noise.
Of course, this is a completely bogus argument, because by claiming a particular algorithm in the context of execution by a computer and working on some kind of data (as many as you want to write claims for, each as abstract as possible obviously), the resulting monopoly covers all useful applications and has virtually the same practical consequences as a monopoly on the algorithm itself. Getting software patents just becomes a wording game...
what is the point of this? I mean the sites that are being taken down are already anti-patent and the people who visit it are also already anti patent. How often does anyone here even visit the GNU website? we have a minority of the people in a minority group (those who use OSS ) protesting this.
The online protest is simply to garner attention for the physical demonstration in Brussels and in the media. It looks nice if you can tell a journalist that 2000 sites closed down in protest. And it's not just open source or free software sites that are closing.
All the protests and marches in the world won't change a thing here. You honestly think that the governments of the world can do _anything_ about this, even barring the fact that none will even try to give this more than lip service?
That's what they said last August as well. It did work. Politicians did a whole lot more than paying lip service to us. In fact, they only paid lip service to the other side.
Direct democracy can work, we've proven that already. I bet you've never in your entire life just went to a politician, knocked on the door and asked him whether you could talk to him about an issue that bothers you. It may sound like an insane thing to do, but it works. Really. Especially if guys fly from Greece to Brussels and start talking to a Greek MEP in Greek. Those people didn't know what hit them.
It's pessimists like you that say that you can't change anything who make sure it is that way. It's a vicious circle. Obviously, you're not going to win every time (e.g., we lost the IPR enforcement directive). But you're making sure the other side doesn't either, so you are making a difference.
Earth to protesters: the people you want to reach are the politicians and other puppetmasters with money, not the lowly geek who needs to install some software or look something up. The people who really matter for this kind of stuff aren't going to look at your web sites, and don't care if you take them down for awhile.
The media most certainly does take note if x-thousand websites were off-line for a certain, and if the media cares, politicians care as well. It's as simple as that.
Also, as one of the slogans of the strike nicely puts it:
10 days of web strike vs. 20 years per software patent
- software patents already exist, have been granted and so on (e.g. GIF in the US, for example, but others in the EU) - in the EU, it was confirmed by the Vicom case;
Indeed, more than 30,000 software patents have already been granted by the European Patent Office. That doesn't mean that they are enforceable in courts of law nor that it was a good idea to do this.
2- the legislation is _merely_ codifying case law practice into statutory to law to reduce the level of confusion (so you don't have to refer to case law)
It's only codifying EPO practice and case law, which contradict both existing European and international law. Just read e.g. the WTO's explanation of TRIPs article 10 (which states that computer programs shall be protected as literary works):
This provision confirms that computer programs must be protected under copyright and that those provisions of the Berne Convention that apply to literary works shall be applied also to them. It confirms further, that the form in which a program is, whether in source or object code, does not affect the protection. The obligation to protect computer programs as literary works means e.g. that
only those limitations that are applicable to literary works may be applied to computer programs.
3- despite the presence of software patents (e.g. gif), the progress of linux and open source has _not_ been hampered - in fact, in most cases, the presence of patents causes people to make workarounds,
If they had to make workarounds, it means they actually were hampered.
some of which are _better_ that the original patents (e.g. GIF -> PNG/JPG; VRRP -> CARP/PFSYNC);
You are assuming that those would never have been introduced if those patents didn't exist. Do you honestly think people would have stuck forever with 256 color gifs?
BTW: jpg is something completely different from gif and its development had nothing to do with the GIF patent. In fact, JPG is no longer an international standard either because it's also patent encumbered (by a patent on RLE-encoding no less).
5- not allowing patents for software means that you remove individual rights to the protection of the fruits of their labour - you _enforce_ an "open" social model on their inventions;
What about copyright, trade secret and licenses? Unlike copyright, which protects the creation of one company without hampering independent creations by others, patents also have an important negative effect: the monopoly that is granted. Whether or not patents are suited in a particular business, depends on whether or not the positive side weighs heavier than the negative one.
If you spend 10 man years on writing a program and you bring it to market, one single patent could force you to stop doing that at once. Where's the protection there? In a court case that costs US$ 2,000,000 to invalidate the patent? In a license of $US 100,000 per patent that you violate? It's almost like you're paying protection money.
Often, proponents of software patents state that copyright is too weak a protection, but when you're a real software developer (instead of the head of the patent department of a company), it's actually the stronger protection. Just imagine a world where there is no copyright protection, only patent protection. You write a program and sell it: maybe one copy, and then everyone is allowed to copy it, unless you have enough money to buy a patent on one of the techniques it uses. Of course, other people will own such patents as well.
So now you have a situation where the program belongs most to the company with the most patents on which it infringes, regardless of who wrote it. Why would you still write programs? To make sure others can
All these software patents are just time bombs waiting to go off. Everything you implement could be patented already, and if the owner of that patent doesn't like you, your project or your company, you're royally screwed.
The term "software patent" is very badly chosen, because you cannot patent a computer program (ony something that it does). If software patents are allowed, Microsoft could for example patent an algorithm that is required to read/decode.doc files.
In May, actions in several European capitals are planned. The template page for London can be found here. Click on the "Addenda" link at the top to get to a wiki with slightly more information, and which will be updated when the event gets further along.
If you want to be kept up-to-date, register as FFII supporter and in subscribe to the uk-parl mailing list under the "Subscribe to news forums" item of the main menu.
He *is* right in that what you have here is an honest-to-God architectural security problem with the Mac OS. It isn't a coding bug or a stupid user -- Apple clearly defines how to determine file type in their specs, which will now need to be revised.
I wonder whether it really is Mac OS-specific. This particular implementation is (since it uses a resource fork), but I'm curious whether you couldn't also make a file that can be both played as an mp3 (or displayed as a jpg or whatever) and which at the same time is also a valid ELF (or whatever) executable. And not a single *nix-like OS looks at the extension to determine whether or not a file is executable.
I'm also not sure how a revision to how to determine the file type would help anything. The Finder etc do identify it as an application, since it is one. The fact that it also happens to be a valid mp3, doesn't change that. They could change the Finder so that it warns the user when he starts an application whose name ends in an extension, but what is an extension? Lots of Mac programs have names like "Avernum 3 v1.1.4". Is this a program name with 2 extensions?
No, he's correct. Quicktime is a fundamental component of Mac OS X (note that I said Mac OS X, not Darwin). I doubt you'd find many included apps that would still start up if you'd remove Quicktime. For example, the Finder is linked to the Quicktime framework.
You can check whether an application requires Quicktime using
Which in turn sucks very much for all of us mailing list administrators, because when the next mydoom or somefool, we're again inundated with posts (held for administrative approval, of course) from all these whitelist auto-responders.
Some even happily tell you that they'll blacklist you permanently if you don't click on the provided link. So I have the choice between clicking on that link and letting the virus through to their mailbox, or just hoping that they'll never want to subscribe to my mailing list. I obviously opt for the latter.
Compulsory ID cards (with or without biometric stuff) are an entirely different matter than photographing and fingerprinting everyone that comes in. We have had compulsory ID cards in Belgium for a long time already, but that does not mean they are checking it everywhere.
At the airport, they simply check whether the photograph matches you and the name on your ticket. You don't have to show your ID card when crossing borders between different EU countries.
Now if they'd introduce RFID-type ID cards, that'd be another matter.
Re:One of the coolest things about PowerPC chips
on
A History of PowerPC
·
· Score: 1
FWIW, it's not exeio, but eieio (Enforce InOrder Execution of I/O). It's indeed a nice name though:)
Some interesting stuff, Currently, PanIP has no outstanding litigation in relation to its United States Patent Portfolio. This makes me think the other 24 suits have been dropped.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need to do exercises for that. You just have to look at existing studies on the motivations of software companies to innovate, for example this presentation of a study performed by the Fraunhofer Institute (owners of the MP3 patents) and the Max Planck Institute. Have a look at slide 15. Patents are the least used way to protect software development, especially in the "primary sector" (= software development sector in their study, the secondary sector was for them companies whose primary purpose is not to develop software, but who also do it to e.g. steer their washing machines etc.)
You don't need software patents to protect investments in software development and RD, and at the same time software patents held by others can completely undermine any investments you made.
No, it is not, especially not as far as software innovation is concerned.
It's true that big companies try to amass as many patents as possible, but that has nothing to do with wanting to get access to innovative ideas they wouldn't come up with themselves. It's called strategic patenting, for both offensive (keep others out of the market) and defensive (make sure others can't keep you out of the market) purposes.
If there weren't any patents, smaller companies would be picked based on their ability to turn great ideas into great products, instead of based on their ability to turn basic ideas into broad patents.
And what if the little guy isn't interested in acquiring patents for EUR 40,000 a piece, but simply wants to develop great software? And what's so great about companies spending millions on litigation instead of on R&D?
Spending much on patents is completely different from innovating a lot. Have a look at e.g. this study (ppt slides) which shows that it's not the innovators that get most patents. Also look at this arcticle by the senior VP of IBM, where he bluntly states that
You don't need patents to encourage insightful applications, experience and intuition. If anything, they hamper that. Companies will not stop pouring money into software research and innovation if they can't get patents for that. After all, they already did that before they could get them, and they also have to continue doing that to remain competitive. If they stop innovating, they will fall behind in the race for the customer.
Note that I'm not claiming that the most innovative company always has the highest market share, there are obviously other fac
No, he's saying exactly what empirical studies show. The only person that hasn't backed up his claims until now in this whole discussion is you. That's probably because there are no empirical studies that show that software patents have mainly positive effects.
So they simply want the EPO to be able to continue to use its own definitions, which makes pretty much everything technical (and thus patentable).
Anyway, you already have a head start. If you introduce a new super-duper program, how long is it going to take for the competition to reverse engineer it, make their own implementation (if they just copy it, they infringe your copyright), test it and sell it? Thanks to copyright and trade secret, you already have a head start.
The trade secret part obviously doesn't work as well for things like interface ideas and business methods, since they are immediately public by virtue of their nature (although you still have to re-implement them completely). Then again, a patent is supposed to give society information in return for a monopoly to the creator. In this case, the information is already in the hands of society, so why would it still grant a monopoly?
That's exactly why software patents are a lawyer's and mindless CFO's wet dream: yhey have to innovate anyway (otherwise they can't compete), were going to publish their innovation anyway (what's the use otherwise?), and now they can get a monopoly on it "for free" (minus patent costs, but society doesn't profit from those costs). You get something for nothing!
In case of software patents, it's simply a matter of making the MEPs understand. The proponents like IBM and Nokia basically say "This is way too difficult for you, but trust us, it's good for us and good for SME's as well". We go to them and make them understand that in fact it's not difficult at all and show them press releases by organisations representing 2,000,000 SME's that say it would not be good for them.
But yes, if it makes you feel better and if you prefer just griping about how everything is corrupt and how you cannot change anything, go ahead. If you can't deal with the heat and with the fact that you may fail, just crawl back under your rock. But please spare us you "advice", because all you seem to want is to be a sad self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sorry for the ad-hominem, but I'm sick of cowards like you who have nothing better to do than just complain about how bad everything is and how they pity the people that do something, while they don't have the guts to do anything themselves because of the fear that they may lose (sorry: the knowledge that they will lose, since they're realistic).
Of course, this is a completely bogus argument, because by claiming a particular algorithm in the context of execution by a computer and working on some kind of data (as many as you want to write claims for, each as abstract as possible obviously), the resulting monopoly covers all useful applications and has virtually the same practical consequences as a monopoly on the algorithm itself. Getting software patents just becomes a wording game...
Direct democracy can work, we've proven that already. I bet you've never in your entire life just went to a politician, knocked on the door and asked him whether you could talk to him about an issue that bothers you. It may sound like an insane thing to do, but it works. Really. Especially if guys fly from Greece to Brussels and start talking to a Greek MEP in Greek. Those people didn't know what hit them.
It's pessimists like you that say that you can't change anything who make sure it is that way. It's a vicious circle. Obviously, you're not going to win every time (e.g., we lost the IPR enforcement directive). But you're making sure the other side doesn't either, so you are making a difference.
Also, as one of the slogans of the strike nicely puts it:
Indeed, more than 30,000 software patents have already been granted by the European Patent Office. That doesn't mean that they are enforceable in courts of law nor that it was a good idea to do this.
It's only codifying EPO practice and case law, which contradict both existing European and international law. Just read e.g. the WTO's explanation of TRIPs article 10 (which states that computer programs shall be protected as literary works):
If they had to make workarounds, it means they actually were hampered.
You are assuming that those would never have been introduced if those patents didn't exist. Do you honestly think people would have stuck forever with 256 color gifs?
BTW: jpg is something completely different from gif and its development had nothing to do with the GIF patent. In fact, JPG is no longer an international standard either because it's also patent encumbered (by a patent on RLE-encoding no less).
What about copyright, trade secret and licenses? Unlike copyright, which protects the creation of one company without hampering independent creations by others, patents also have an important negative effect: the monopoly that is granted. Whether or not patents are suited in a particular business, depends on whether or not the positive side weighs heavier than the negative one.
If you spend 10 man years on writing a program and you bring it to market, one single patent could force you to stop doing that at once. Where's the protection there? In a court case that costs US$ 2,000,000 to invalidate the patent? In a license of $US 100,000 per patent that you violate? It's almost like you're paying protection money.
Often, proponents of software patents state that copyright is too weak a protection, but when you're a real software developer (instead of the head of the patent department of a company), it's actually the stronger protection. Just imagine a world where there is no copyright protection, only patent protection. You write a program and sell it: maybe one copy, and then everyone is allowed to copy it, unless you have enough money to buy a patent on one of the techniques it uses. Of course, other people will own such patents as well.
So now you have a situation where the program belongs most to the company with the most patents on which it infringes, regardless of who wrote it. Why would you still write programs? To make sure others can
All these software patents are just time bombs waiting to go off. Everything you implement could be patented already, and if the owner of that patent doesn't like you, your project or your company, you're royally screwed.
The term "software patent" is very badly chosen, because you cannot patent a computer program (ony something that it does). If software patents are allowed, Microsoft could for example patent an algorithm that is required to read/decode .doc files.
If you want to be kept up-to-date, register as FFII supporter and in subscribe to the uk-parl mailing list under the "Subscribe to news forums" item of the main menu.
I'm also not sure how a revision to how to determine the file type would help anything. The Finder etc do identify it as an application, since it is one. The fact that it also happens to be a valid mp3, doesn't change that. They could change the Finder so that it warns the user when he starts an application whose name ends in an extension, but what is an extension? Lots of Mac programs have names like "Avernum 3 v1.1.4". Is this a program name with 2 extensions?
You can check whether an application requires Quicktime using
otool -L appname.app/Contents/MacOS/appname | grep QuickTime
Which in turn sucks very much for all of us mailing list administrators, because when the next mydoom or somefool, we're again inundated with posts (held for administrative approval, of course) from all these whitelist auto-responders.
Some even happily tell you that they'll blacklist you permanently if you don't click on the provided link. So I have the choice between clicking on that link and letting the virus through to their mailbox, or just hoping that they'll never want to subscribe to my mailing list. I obviously opt for the latter.
At the airport, they simply check whether the photograph matches you and the name on your ticket. You don't have to show your ID card when crossing borders between different EU countries.
Now if they'd introduce RFID-type ID cards, that'd be another matter.
FWIW, it's not exeio, but eieio (Enforce InOrder Execution of I/O). It's indeed a nice name though :)
We have the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive), but it explicitly allows reverse engineering for the purpose of research.