I have to wonder if you're just using hyperbole too much, or actually believe Microsoft is the biggest threat to small software companies...
It's called an EXAMPLE. People are complaining about advantages to large businesses, and Microsoft is the largest business that immediately comes to mind.
You could just as easily substitute any number of other big players who hold lots of software patents.
Why don't you focus on the topic instead of nitpicking?
Sorry, I have been coding for over thirty years there is NO "invention" taking place in that process any more than a plumbers or carpenters solution to a tricky bathroom remodeling around a basement support pole is patentable. Solving these issues can be done by any competent practitioner, similar coding would be created by a majority of the programming community given a correctly defined problem. I.E. what we do is OBVIOUS and NOT patentable.
With all due respect to you, many of the inventors I meet with are frickin' geniuses, and most certainly do invent. Your characterization of coding does disrespect to those out there who are actually coming up with new and innovative software concepts.
This approach is then a real problem. Do you really deserve to "own" the ideas in the patent you're writing? The second it's filed, how many real-world implementations out there are suddenly infringing because other developers had to follow similar logical processes to arrive at a solution that solves the same problem?
Wow, you really don't understand patents, do you? If other implementations are already out there, it's called PRIOR ART, and the patent is INVALID.
I can't help but think that the real innovators that advance technology in this world are disadvantaged, stifling progress - and that people benefiting from software patents who are irrelevant to technological progress are disproportionately advantaged.
That's funny, considering the amount of money that large companies pour into technological research. But those companies hold patents, so they must be irrelevant to technological process. I see your point.
How does the patent system protect creative work? By disallowing anyone else from using the same idea after you've patented it?
I'm sorry... this just doesn't compute. Allowing people to COPY ideas is now equivalent to "creative work"???
Say someone invents X and patents it. Then 50 years later another young man independently thinks of the idea to build X.
Have you ever heard of "patent terms"? Patents grant exclusive licensing rights FOR A LIMITED TIME.
Patents basically punish people for not being the first to think of the idea.
Yes, how horrible of us to be rewarding people for being the first to invent something. And all those other people who COULD have invented the same thing. But they didn't. Poor things. How will they ever put food on their tables?
Please calm down and don't be so easily offended. I am sorry I got your occupation and earnings wrong (I don't have time to read your website), but it is still true that you have a vested interest in what you are pushing the EU to do.
Spare me the sanctimony. Making claims about my occupation and vested interests without knowing anything about me is no better than lying. In either case, you've fabricating information about me to forward your agenda. It's dishonest and reprehensible. And accusing me of being "easily offended" is just a manipulative way of trying to avoid responsibility.
I can see there's no point in continuing with you, because you're just repeating the same arguments over and over. Your bottom line is, "It's expensive!" But your alternative is a free market, in which fairness somehow emerges from an absence of law. Please. Fairness in this world is only as likely as our ability to enforce it.
Good luck with your business. Someday, maybe, you'll realize that the patent system -- although certainly imperfect -- has a net positive effect when compared to the alternative.
No it is not. It is the same as saying you can patent the implementation of an algorithm, which is already covered by copyright. use != implementation.
Look, you're still not getting it. Mechanical patents are no different from software patents. You patent as broadly as you can while getting around the prior art. Using your engine example, you wouldn't try to patent "a gizmo of type X connected to a doodad of type Y to form a combustible engine." You would try to patent "a gizmo and a doodad connected to form a combustible engine." You would only limit the invention to "type X" or "type Y" IF REQUIRED TO GET AROUND PRIOR ART. That's absolutely NO different from saying "a shopping cart module connected to a website to form an electronic purchasing interface." You only get into the details of the implementation if REQUIRED to.
There are plenty of people who have "experience" writing software and yet still don't know the first thing about it.
If you think that's true of me, then explain your point of view. I'm not just going to take your word for it that I don't know what I'm talking about, ya know?;)
Most likely because you don't know anything about writing software. If you did, you'd understand how much patents are an incredibly poor fit as a tool to enhance the software industry.
Or maybe I do have experience writing software, and just happen to disagree with you. Nah, that's impossible.
It would be more useful if you linked to the actual patent, so I can see what was actually infringed.
I'm willing to bet that Adobe held a patent for a fairly specific use of tabs, and that's what Macromedia infringed on. I'd also be VERY interested to learn what the countersuit involved, since it resulted in Adobe paying out more than it won in the initial suit.
Seriously, a couple of vague sentences in Wikipedia, lacking references to source materials, doesn't do much to prove a point.
it ought to be crystal clear that without software patents any SMALL business can copy Microsoft's ideas just as much as they can copy the ideas of the SMALL business.
Your naivety is scary. The problem isn't whether you can copy the idea -- it's whether you can actually COMPETE. Do you have millions of dollars to throw at advertising? Government lobbyists? Exclusive contracts with major institutions? I don't think you understand what it takes to be successful against these companies.
As for your interest in this debate, you do not completely hide what you do. You are an American patent lawyer earning not much less than a million dollars a year from patent litigation. You clearly have a massive vested interest in this debate which is why you are trying to argue that a foreign entity, the European Union, should introduce software patents which would harm European SMALL businesses but which would benefit the largest companies in the world, many of which are your current or future clients.
BULLSHIT. Everything you just posted about me is a LIE. I've been decent until now, but you're completely misrepresenting me, and that's simply reprehensible. I am NOT a patent lawyer. I am a patent ENGINEER, which is OBVIOUS from my WEBSITE, which I referred you to. You're also welcome to visit the website for the law firm I work for, which is clearly LINKED from my homepage, and see where I am in the employee guide. I have a TECHNICAL degree, NOT a LAW degree, and I write patents. I have never been involved in a litigation in my LIFE. My annual salary doesn't even APPROACH 6 figures, you moron. I'm in this business because it INTERESTS me, not for the money.
The next time you respond to one of my posts, at least make an EFFORT to know what the hell you're talking about.
The non-patentablity of software is enshrined in the EPC and supported by historical EPO documentation. It's not just the law, it's the opinion of the majority and was the opinion of the patent office before a wealthy minority began trying to force a change.
In other words, "The majority agrees with me, therefore I am right."
Why don't you go do that if it makes you feel better about losing this argument!
Good counterargument.
Since when do hard working, ligitimate businesses object to a little healthy competition?
I'm sure most businesses don't object to healthy competition. But pitting a tiny software shop against a billionaire giant like Microsoft hardly qualifies as healthy.
I'm usually running through the code execution path in my head as I'm writing my beautiful poetry. I'd love to hear about how you write software if you are incapable of thinking a program through before you write code?
Way to miss the point and mangle my words. All inventions obviously start out as ideas. But please -- continue to explain to me how software is merely equivalent to a mental step.
Let say that my patent is "for every two or more letters, symbols or shape this form a written, drawn, artistic illustration, or spoke word." Then I can charge the royalties fee of 2 dollars per letter used to form a word. Now that I have a patent, I can sue everyone who speaks a language, or paint words, or type words, or create words into any form of media, fashion, or desired language. So to avoid being sued, you must speak or write or artistic illustration in individual letters. T h e r e f o r e, y o u w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d t o m a k e i t l o o k l i k e o r s p e a k l i k e i t i s t y p e d h e r e. I t i s t h e o n l y l e g a l w a y t o c o m m u n i c a t e. (For those hard at reading single letter text - Therefore, you would be required to make it look like or speak like it is typed here. It is the only legal way to communicate.)
Your example is nowhere near the actual claim scope that software patents end up actually having.
I even have heard someone trying to patent binary numbers 0 and 1, or bits and bytes so that they can charge royalty fees base on how much bytes you use in software programming. If you used 12 kilobytes to deliver your software they could be sued a software company for not paying their 12 million dollars fee, since 12kilobytes will have a fee of 12 million dollars.
Okay, but did that patent application actually issue? People try to patent the ridiculous in ALL fields, and sometimes even get away with it (due to crappy Examiners). That doesn't mean the patent is valid. Just because somebody tries to patent something absurd doesn't mean there's something wrong with the system -- it means there's something wrong with that individual.
The primary goal of patenting software is to make sure no one else can create the same software totally written in a different language. Example, the calendar program written is java verses perl. Once the calendar is patented in java, then no one can design the calendar software in perl without paying royalties. Even though built in different languages, in different methods, and different ways. Calendar have already been patented and locked into only one specific software and no one else can implement any calendar that resemble the likeness of it.
So? If nobody had ever thought of calendar software before, why shouldn't you have some right to the invention? By the way, what you're talking about is "doctrine of equivalents," and it applies to ALL PATENTS, not just software patents. Patents generally capture the essence of the invention, to the minimum level of detail required to get around the prior art. That's not unique to software patents.
No, patents always covered the specific implementation of the idea, not the idea itself. That was why getting the claims right was important, because you had to make them as general as possible to cover minor variations, but were not supposed to be able to make them so general as to cover everything.
But software patents always amount to giving a monopoly on an idea, not an implementation of an idea.
Patents in ALL areas are as broad as the applicant can get away with. If you don't think mechanical patent applications also shoot for the moon, you're fooling yourself.
Your post also indicates that you have limited experience with software patents. Many software patents do end up being EXTREMELY narrow, due to the volume of prior art in certain fields. It all depends on what the Examiner comes up with.
If you change the source code to a piece of software, you no longer have the same software.
But you have the same INVENTION. You are missing the entire point of software patents. Nobody wants to patent their specific code -- they want to patent the inventions that happen to be implemented in code.
I write hundreds of potentially patentable algorithms and combinations of algorithms every week
No you don't. Pure algorithms aren't patentable. You need to understand that in their current state, software patents are essentially business method patents, tied to a computer structure. They are, essentially, patents on an inventive computer-implemented means of accomplishing some task.
Your argument falls down because it contains an illogical step. I and most SMALL businesses are not arguing for the abolition of patents. We are arguing against introducing a harmful new type of patent in Europe that will be very financially damaging to SMALL businesses in Europe. What we SMALL businesses want is very simple. We need the existing level-playing field for business in Europe to continue as it is because otherwise software patent lawsuits will be extremely financially harmful to our SMALL businesses. All we want is to keep the status quo -- it obviously does not mean or imply abolishing all patents. It is for you, the big business patent fanatics to explain why your proposals for software patents in Europe do not constitute an economic threat that would be extremely financially damaging to SMALL business.
What "level playing field" are you talking about? No such thing currently exists! As it stands, Microsoft can simply copy your ideas and force you out of the market. Do you really think that's better than having at least a CHANCE of asserting a patent against them?
By the way, would you like to disclose what is your interest in this matter? Do you run a SMALL business, or are you a patent lawyer?
My website link is there for any and all to click on... I'm not trying to hide anything at all.
So they should be able to influence public policy for every one else? To "preserve the status-quo"?
Putting those words in quotes implies that I said that, which is completely dishonest. I said nothing of the sort. What I'm saying is that it's inevitable that some businesses won't be able to afford to assert their patents. However, in the absence of a better alternative, just because some businesses can't afford to assert their patents doesn't mean that NO businesses should be able to.
"America has the best democracy that money can buy" s/America/The EU/
Which does absolutely nothing to address my actual point. Can you propose a better alternative, or are you simply inclined to wail away about the injustices of the world?
Patents are not suitable for protecting mental steps, maths, software, business processes or literature. That's why software was explicitly excluded from patentability, big money, bought politicians and fancy lawyers don't change the fact!
Software is nowhere near the same as a mental step. Can you simply think a program into operation? No, you require physical processes to make it happen. And I've already discussed why copyright laws aren't sufficient to protect software inventions.
What invention? Software is the implementation, just as a book is the implementation and nobody invents a book!
If you change the words of a book, you no longer have the same book. In that sense, a book merely implements itself. Not so with software. You can use a completely different code base, a completely different operating system, a completely different hardware base, and still arrive at the same result. That RESULT is the invention, i.e., the PURPOSE of the software. A book is not at all comparable, because the book IS ITS OWN purpose.
So just because the law is written a certain way, that means it's completely rational and correct?
I'll be sure to remind people of that the next time the DMCA comes up in discussion.
Can you imagine comming up with an amazing 'invention' in your latest novel, only to have another author write something similar in a completely different book? Personally, I'd be flattered.
Since when does flattery have anything to do with business interests???
Slashdot Mirror
I have to wonder if you're just using hyperbole too much, or actually believe Microsoft is the biggest threat to small software companies...
It's called an EXAMPLE. People are complaining about advantages to large businesses, and Microsoft is the largest business that immediately comes to mind.
You could just as easily substitute any number of other big players who hold lots of software patents.
Why don't you focus on the topic instead of nitpicking?
No, it was the sound of you using an unsubstantiated comment on Wikipedia as your "evidence", and refusing to back it up when I called you on it.
Nice try.
Seriously, if you're going to point to a patent as evidence, point to the PATENT, not somebody's (probably ill-informed) opinion about it.
Sorry, I have been coding for over thirty years there is NO "invention" taking place in that process any more than a plumbers or carpenters solution to a tricky bathroom remodeling around a basement support pole is patentable. Solving these issues can be done by any competent practitioner, similar coding would be created by a majority of the programming community given a correctly defined problem. I.E. what we do is OBVIOUS and NOT patentable.
With all due respect to you, many of the inventors I meet with are frickin' geniuses, and most certainly do invent. Your characterization of coding does disrespect to those out there who are actually coming up with new and innovative software concepts.
This approach is then a real problem. Do you really deserve to "own" the ideas in the patent you're writing? The second it's filed, how many real-world implementations out there are suddenly infringing because other developers had to follow similar logical processes to arrive at a solution that solves the same problem?
Wow, you really don't understand patents, do you? If other implementations are already out there, it's called PRIOR ART, and the patent is INVALID.
I can't help but think that the real innovators that advance technology in this world are disadvantaged, stifling progress - and that people benefiting from software patents who are irrelevant to technological progress are disproportionately advantaged.
That's funny, considering the amount of money that large companies pour into technological research. But those companies hold patents, so they must be irrelevant to technological process. I see your point.
How does the patent system protect creative work? By disallowing anyone else from using the same idea after you've patented it?
I'm sorry... this just doesn't compute. Allowing people to COPY ideas is now equivalent to "creative work"???
Say someone invents X and patents it. Then 50 years later another young man independently thinks of the idea to build X.
Have you ever heard of "patent terms"? Patents grant exclusive licensing rights FOR A LIMITED TIME.
Patents basically punish people for not being the first to think of the idea.
Yes, how horrible of us to be rewarding people for being the first to invent something. And all those other people who COULD have invented the same thing. But they didn't. Poor things. How will they ever put food on their tables?
Please calm down and don't be so easily offended. I am sorry I got your occupation and earnings wrong (I don't have time to read your website), but it is still true that you have a vested interest in what you are pushing the EU to do.
Spare me the sanctimony. Making claims about my occupation and vested interests without knowing anything about me is no better than lying. In either case, you've fabricating information about me to forward your agenda. It's dishonest and reprehensible. And accusing me of being "easily offended" is just a manipulative way of trying to avoid responsibility.
I can see there's no point in continuing with you, because you're just repeating the same arguments over and over. Your bottom line is, "It's expensive!" But your alternative is a free market, in which fairness somehow emerges from an absence of law. Please. Fairness in this world is only as likely as our ability to enforce it.
Good luck with your business. Someday, maybe, you'll realize that the patent system -- although certainly imperfect -- has a net positive effect when compared to the alternative.
No it is not. It is the same as saying you can patent the implementation of an algorithm, which is already covered by copyright. use != implementation.
Look, you're still not getting it. Mechanical patents are no different from software patents. You patent as broadly as you can while getting around the prior art. Using your engine example, you wouldn't try to patent "a gizmo of type X connected to a doodad of type Y to form a combustible engine." You would try to patent "a gizmo and a doodad connected to form a combustible engine." You would only limit the invention to "type X" or "type Y" IF REQUIRED TO GET AROUND PRIOR ART. That's absolutely NO different from saying "a shopping cart module connected to a website to form an electronic purchasing interface." You only get into the details of the implementation if REQUIRED to.
There are plenty of people who have "experience" writing software and yet still don't know the first thing about it.
;)
If you think that's true of me, then explain your point of view. I'm not just going to take your word for it that I don't know what I'm talking about, ya know?
Most likely because you don't know anything about writing software. If you did, you'd understand how much patents are an incredibly poor fit as a tool to enhance the software industry.
Or maybe I do have experience writing software, and just happen to disagree with you. Nah, that's impossible.
What inventions? We don't invent software, we develop it, solving the problems as we go.
You mean you don't come up with an invention before you start writing the code? Remind me never to use your software...
It would be more useful if you linked to the actual patent, so I can see what was actually infringed.
I'm willing to bet that Adobe held a patent for a fairly specific use of tabs, and that's what Macromedia infringed on. I'd also be VERY interested to learn what the countersuit involved, since it resulted in Adobe paying out more than it won in the initial suit.
Seriously, a couple of vague sentences in Wikipedia, lacking references to source materials, doesn't do much to prove a point.
it ought to be crystal clear that without software patents any SMALL business can copy Microsoft's ideas just as much as they can copy the ideas of the SMALL business.
Your naivety is scary. The problem isn't whether you can copy the idea -- it's whether you can actually COMPETE. Do you have millions of dollars to throw at advertising? Government lobbyists? Exclusive contracts with major institutions? I don't think you understand what it takes to be successful against these companies.
As for your interest in this debate, you do not completely hide what you do. You are an American patent lawyer earning not much less than a million dollars a year from patent litigation. You clearly have a massive vested interest in this debate which is why you are trying to argue that a foreign entity, the European Union, should introduce software patents which would harm European SMALL businesses but which would benefit the largest companies in the world, many of which are your current or future clients.
BULLSHIT. Everything you just posted about me is a LIE. I've been decent until now, but you're completely misrepresenting me, and that's simply reprehensible. I am NOT a patent lawyer. I am a patent ENGINEER, which is OBVIOUS from my WEBSITE, which I referred you to. You're also welcome to visit the website for the law firm I work for, which is clearly LINKED from my homepage, and see where I am in the employee guide. I have a TECHNICAL degree, NOT a LAW degree, and I write patents. I have never been involved in a litigation in my LIFE. My annual salary doesn't even APPROACH 6 figures, you moron. I'm in this business because it INTERESTS me, not for the money.
The next time you respond to one of my posts, at least make an EFFORT to know what the hell you're talking about.
Which is commonly called "software" and specifically excluded from patentability in the EPC.
Yup. And that's what we're talking about. Some people agree with the law, and others don't. You're simply restating the problem.
Oh, you mean like apparatus for switching view via button press and such? I don't write those? You coulda fooled me.
I'm sure there's prior art for that. It's not patentable.
You cannot patent the concept of converting flammable fuels into motive force,
which is the same as saying you can't patent an algorithm
but you can patent a specific implementation of an internal combustion engine
which is the same as saying you can patent a specific use of an algorithm.
Your example is entirely consistent with software patents.
The non-patentablity of software is enshrined in the EPC and supported by historical EPO documentation.
It's not just the law, it's the opinion of the majority and was the opinion of the patent office before a wealthy minority began trying to force a change.
In other words, "The majority agrees with me, therefore I am right."
Why don't you go do that if it makes you feel better about losing this argument!
Good counterargument.
Since when do hard working, ligitimate businesses object to a little healthy competition?
I'm sure most businesses don't object to healthy competition. But pitting a tiny software shop against a billionaire giant like Microsoft hardly qualifies as healthy.
I'm usually running through the code execution path in my head as I'm writing my beautiful poetry. I'd love to hear about how you write software if you are incapable of thinking a program through before you write code?
Way to miss the point and mangle my words. All inventions obviously start out as ideas. But please -- continue to explain to me how software is merely equivalent to a mental step.
Let say that my patent is "for every two or more letters, symbols or shape this form a written, drawn, artistic illustration, or spoke word." Then I can charge the royalties fee of 2 dollars per letter used to form a word. Now that I have a patent, I can sue everyone who speaks a language, or paint words, or type words, or create words into any form of media, fashion, or desired language. So to avoid being sued, you must speak or write or artistic illustration in individual letters. T h e r e f o r e, y o u w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d t o m a k e i t l o o k l i k e o r s p e a k l i k e i t i s t y p e d h e r e. I t i s t h e o n l y l e g a l w a y t o c o m m u n i c a t e. (For those hard at reading single letter text - Therefore, you would be required to make it look like or speak like it is typed here. It is the only legal way to communicate.)
Your example is nowhere near the actual claim scope that software patents end up actually having.
I even have heard someone trying to patent binary numbers 0 and 1, or bits and bytes so that they can charge royalty fees base on how much bytes you use in software programming. If you used 12 kilobytes to deliver your software they could be sued a software company for not paying their 12 million dollars fee, since 12kilobytes will have a fee of 12 million dollars.
Okay, but did that patent application actually issue? People try to patent the ridiculous in ALL fields, and sometimes even get away with it (due to crappy Examiners). That doesn't mean the patent is valid. Just because somebody tries to patent something absurd doesn't mean there's something wrong with the system -- it means there's something wrong with that individual.
The primary goal of patenting software is to make sure no one else can create the same software totally written in a different language. Example, the calendar program written is java verses perl. Once the calendar is patented in java, then no one can design the calendar software in perl without paying royalties. Even though built in different languages, in different methods, and different ways. Calendar have already been patented and locked into only one specific software and no one else can implement any calendar that resemble the likeness of it.
So? If nobody had ever thought of calendar software before, why shouldn't you have some right to the invention? By the way, what you're talking about is "doctrine of equivalents," and it applies to ALL PATENTS, not just software patents. Patents generally capture the essence of the invention, to the minimum level of detail required to get around the prior art. That's not unique to software patents.
No, patents always covered the specific implementation of the idea, not the idea itself. That was why getting the claims right was important, because you had to make them as general as possible to cover minor variations, but were not supposed to be able to make them so general as to cover everything.
But software patents always amount to giving a monopoly on an idea, not an implementation of an idea.
Patents in ALL areas are as broad as the applicant can get away with. If you don't think mechanical patent applications also shoot for the moon, you're fooling yourself.
Your post also indicates that you have limited experience with software patents. Many software patents do end up being EXTREMELY narrow, due to the volume of prior art in certain fields. It all depends on what the Examiner comes up with.
If you change the source code to a piece of software, you no longer have the same software.
But you have the same INVENTION. You are missing the entire point of software patents. Nobody wants to patent their specific code -- they want to patent the inventions that happen to be implemented in code.
I write hundreds of potentially patentable algorithms and combinations of algorithms every week
No you don't. Pure algorithms aren't patentable. You need to understand that in their current state, software patents are essentially business method patents, tied to a computer structure. They are, essentially, patents on an inventive computer-implemented means of accomplishing some task.
Your argument falls down because it contains an illogical step. I and most SMALL businesses are not arguing for the abolition of patents. We are arguing against introducing a harmful new type of patent in Europe that will be very financially damaging to SMALL businesses in Europe. What we SMALL businesses want is very simple. We need the existing level-playing field for business in Europe to continue as it is because otherwise software patent lawsuits will be extremely financially harmful to our SMALL businesses. All we want is to keep the status quo -- it obviously does not mean or imply abolishing all patents. It is for you, the big business patent fanatics to explain why your proposals for software patents in Europe do not constitute an economic threat that would be extremely financially damaging to SMALL business.
What "level playing field" are you talking about? No such thing currently exists! As it stands, Microsoft can simply copy your ideas and force you out of the market. Do you really think that's better than having at least a CHANCE of asserting a patent against them?
By the way, would you like to disclose what is your interest in this matter? Do you run a SMALL business, or are you a patent lawyer?
My website link is there for any and all to click on... I'm not trying to hide anything at all.
So they should be able to influence public policy for every one else? To "preserve the status-quo"?
Putting those words in quotes implies that I said that, which is completely dishonest. I said nothing of the sort. What I'm saying is that it's inevitable that some businesses won't be able to afford to assert their patents. However, in the absence of a better alternative, just because some businesses can't afford to assert their patents doesn't mean that NO businesses should be able to.
"America has the best democracy that money can buy"
s/America/The EU/
Which does absolutely nothing to address my actual point. Can you propose a better alternative, or are you simply inclined to wail away about the injustices of the world?
Patents are not suitable for protecting mental steps, maths, software, business processes or literature. That's why software was explicitly excluded from patentability, big money, bought politicians and fancy lawyers don't change the fact!
Software is nowhere near the same as a mental step. Can you simply think a program into operation? No, you require physical processes to make it happen. And I've already discussed why copyright laws aren't sufficient to protect software inventions.
What invention? Software is the implementation, just as a book is the implementation and nobody invents a book!
If you change the words of a book, you no longer have the same book. In that sense, a book merely implements itself. Not so with software. You can use a completely different code base, a completely different operating system, a completely different hardware base, and still arrive at the same result. That RESULT is the invention, i.e., the PURPOSE of the software. A book is not at all comparable, because the book IS ITS OWN purpose.
Clearly you do not understand 91/250/EEC:
So just because the law is written a certain way, that means it's completely rational and correct?
I'll be sure to remind people of that the next time the DMCA comes up in discussion.
Can you imagine comming up with an amazing 'invention' in your latest novel, only to have another author write something similar in a completely different book? Personally, I'd be flattered.
Since when does flattery have anything to do with business interests???