I'm at university doing an engineering course and at the start of every year, someone will go around the year selling (obviously pirated) versions of AutoCAD and the other Engineering applications.
No-one I know agrees with pirating, although to call it 'stealing' is going right over the top. Its just that no-one as a student can afford to fork out £500 or more just to try out a piece of software.
To me, it is the software companies with monopolies on markets forcing people to use their well overprices software who are stealing.
Well I think its admirable that they are taking the intiative to try and further improve the streets around Cambridge, although last time I visited Cambridge they already looked very good and clean (which is always the most important thing in my view).
I think a further improvement would be to make these robotic bins have 'patches' of pavement/sidewalks to maintain.
The vandalism problem shouldn't be too much a problem, Camrbidge already have ample CCTV cameras overlooking most of the centre streets and a decent casing would stop all but the most determined and persistant idiot (who could then be swooped on by police alerted by the CCTV). Some sort of tracking device could also help prevent theft.
Maybe it will even out, but what about the science which only deals with the present?
E.g. Implementing local government policy: It seems increasingly common these days for companies to do the research themselves (sometimes it may be claimed 'independant', but ofcourse it is under their parameters and so sure to put them at the top).
then give it to the local government (or the relevant privatised service/utility company) who are all to willing to accept a scheme where they can quote existing research (often misleadingly masquerading it as 'independant' or 'fair' when it is neither,) rather than spend time & money doing there own proper research.
Future science won't help the state or town which has just wasted millions (on say a computer system from a more expensive company) due to incorrect research.
The only difference being that in the U.S. when the parliment/committee decides it's a stupid idea, the lobbyists then go and have discussions with a few senators regarding campaign funding and the like.
A short time later, the senators go back to re-vote and suddenly just enough of them change their minds to pass the vote.
Both the systems have the exact same effect, its just that in the U.S. it can sometimes cost the lobbyists a little bit more (which is beside the point anyway as its an investment, not a cost, to the big companies).
"[bittorrent] dims the magic of the movies for everyone"
Oh my god, how on earth can they expect people to take them seriously when they translate "could let a relativly insignificant percentage of people see the movie without contributing to the $40 billion empire" to the above quote.
It just goes to show how totally amoral movie distributers and their representatives are and why I'm proud to have several people uploading the movie off my computer right at this moment!
Thats the BSA for you: To them (the BSA) it doesn't matter if people in these countries can't afford to eat, as long as they and there bankrupt governments don't pirate their software!
Sounds extremist, but the majority of BSA literature concerning piracy in third world countries does definatly convey this sort of ideology.
I despise with the BSA's main argument that software piracy supposably costs jobs and the moral implications of such.
While such a cliam is largely assumed and unsubstanstiated (escpecially in today's healthy software market), it distracts attention from the amount of jobs that must be sacrificed around the world by companies forced to spend ever larger amounts on often over-priced business software.
Especially in the poorer and third world countries where the vast majority of software piracy occurs.
I don't think you can conclusivly say Chernobyl caused more deaths than Bhopal.
Sure, taking the higher estimates of chernobyl (and there are some wild and improbably high estimates for Chernobyl) and the lower estimates for Bhopal would mean Chernobyl killed more. But then again doing the vice versa says that Bhopal killed more.
Wheras its true the Soviet cover-up probably means a larger actual death toll than the official estimates (which I am always surprised at how low they are considering the notoriety), in Bhopal it is still simply unknown how many people actually lived their in the first place and so the figures for that incident have always been considered an under-estimate.
Most best estimates almost always place the death toll estimates for both incidents at between ~10 - ~50 thousand. Only the vested interest groups have placed figures in the 100's of thouands (I have seen estimates for Bhopal which also claim 100's of tousands died).
One last note: The lasting legacy of the 100's of thousands of people which were definatly injured at Bhopal is undoubtably causing more suffering than Chernobyl (which raised cancer rates in the region by an estimated ~3%).
Of course it must be remebered that both these figures pale in comparion to the millions who have died around the world due to air pollution, much of which is generally estimated to be due to electricty production. This makes changes in energy production policy based on the Chernobyl incident extremely naive and deadly.
"That's not counting her smoker time outside - which she managed to do at least ten minutes out of each hour."
I escpecially sympathise with this line.
I used to work in a local bar with about 6-8 bar staff during evenings. Just like you described, once an hour the smokers (about 2/3 of staff) would go out the back and have their chat....oh and a smoke, leaving me and the few others who hope to live past 70 alone on the bar covering for them. After a while I started to go and join them for the extra 10 minutes break per hour, sometimes I would hold a cigerette to look the part and the boss never cared.
When the boss found out I didn't actually smoke he demanded I stay behind the bar while the others went off and smoked.
A couple of months later I quit to go to uni but have always been really annoyed at the way smokers get an extra break every hour or two just because they smoke.
Why is it just smokers? At the time I had an equally unhealthy addiction to Counter-strike, would I have been allowed to go out the back to play Counter-Strike on a laptop for a few minutes once an hour?
...I didn't even bother asking. I still don't understand why such an unhealthy, anti-social habit which most countries are trying to reduce is encouraged this way by so many businesses?
What I don't understand is why they are launching from the Barents Sea which as I understand is close to the north pole.
I may be wrong but I had always thought Rocket launches were normally done close to the equator to make the trip to space shorter and hence cheaper. Why then for such a 'cheap' mission have they picked somewhere which will raise there rocket fuel costs?
Many of today's big enviromental issues are mostly about supply.
Enviromentalists go on about the problems associated with emissions from the current rampant energy use but personally I think of even more concern is whats going to happen in 50 years time when even optomistic estimates show oil completely running out (atleast for the next few million years!).
Even if their is any oil left in 50 years (or even in 25-30 years for that matter) it is likely to be so highly priced and with much of it reserved (e.g. for military use) 99% of us simply won't be able to drive cars or do anything which relies on car use (pretty much all of modern life in the USA).
People talk of hydrogen cars etc. but if it can't be done now, why would it suddenly be possible in 25 years time? After all the idea was around 25 years ago and very little progress has been made since.
The same goes for natural gas (the stuff used to heat houses etc.). If its all gone (or even nearly gone) in 60 or so years, how exactly are we going to warm our houses?
Enviromentalists go on and on about the damage the effects of current energy usage will effect our great grand-children but I in my early twenties and hope to be around in 25, 50, even 75 years time (if I'm lucky) and wonder how exactly the world is going to carry on being so 'modern' without any oil or gas?
My (and I gather a lot of other people's) problem with GM crops from an enviromental standpoint is mainly due to the current way they are used.
Currently, GM crops are predominatly crops made resistant to a particular potent and extremely nasty chemical which can then be sprayed all over the countryside as the farmers know their crops won't die.
The fact that everything else dies, and the land is made totally uninhabitable to any non-GM'ed plant or animal, sometimes for many years, is ignored in pursuit of that tiny extra percentage of output.
The fears over GM food maybe unknown but the enviromental damage caused by GM crops is detailed in many independant studies on the issue. This is what has lead to the banning of (or lack of licensing of) GM food in many countries.
So far, it is only the GM companies own studies which show that GM food does not seriously damage the enviroment (as is pretty much always the case with such 'research').
My god, NASA are really runnign out of money. First, they can't afford to keep their two most succsessful probes going, now they can't afford to give out decent prizes.
The sceptic in me wonders whether NASA may just be hoping no-one will bother, then when they go off in a few years time and spend a dcent few 100 million on the projects, they will be like "look we did what no-one else could again".
After all, these days they are having problems stressing their usefulness to a US government itching to spend NASA's grant money on another war or two.
I think it would be best, rather than look for ways to occupy your mind on your 1-2 hour commute, to get a job closer to home.
Long commutes are very irrational and do extreme amounts of damage to the enviroment at your own expense.
Wouldn't it be better to consider getting a job closer to home or moving to live closer to the place you visit (and currently waist 1-2 hours getting to) almost everyday of the year?
Indeed. It reminds me of the EU fine against Microsoft.
Sure it was the biggest fine the EU have ever given out to a company but what does 500 million count to a company which has however many 10's of billions sitting around in the bank.
Its an ironic problem really. The more companies act unscrupulously means the more money they have available to pay of the fines for that bad behaviour.
In a more ethical world maybe, but Kraft is a large multi-national company which has been the subject of many accusations of immorality and exploitation of labour (to name a couple) and therefor I do not think they deserve charitble ethical treatment.
More to the point, if the situations were reversed, would Kraft give up the website to another multi-national company if the other company had more use for the site?
No way in a million years (for a few million dollars maybe, but such an offer is not on the table in this case). Would Kraft foods include a reference to her website (or that other multi-national company) if Kraft had purchased milka.fr first? Absolutly not! Kraft foods would spend that tiny percentage of their annual legal budget required to fight until they won the right to keep the domain.
I think that Milka Budimir should be allocated state legal aid (or some other form of appropriate legal funding) so she can win future ownership of what is rightfully hers.
If NASA stopped spending 100's of millions outsourcing everything to every company in America which donates money to political campaigns then they wouldn't have to cut such programs in the first place.
"Easy, a patent covering something already patented in the US would be invalid."
I'm no patent expert, but why would this be so?
Surely a US company could take the already US patented item and go to the EPO and say "please patent this" and get it patented.
The item then becomes patented in the EU as in the US and the EPO gets a bit of money. Anyone else trying to patent it would not be able due to obvious prior art.
But I do not see any reason why a US company cannot simply repatent their US software patent in the EU?
Sure the EU will probably disallow the most absurd US software patents, but most would probably get through.
I wrote to my MEP about the subject (A Liberal Democrat). While I was surprised to find the Liberal Democrats in favour of patents (being 'lefty' they usually are agianst big business screwing people over) she did send me an intereasting document on the matter which I'll list:
---------- Start of Document ----------
European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services
Statement to the European Parliament on Computer Implemented Inventions
European Parliament Plenary Session Strasbourg, 8 March 2005
President,
the Commission is grateful for this opportunity to make a statement on the proposal on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. I already had the opportunity to debate the proposal with the Committee on Legal Affairs on 2nd February and to discuss it with the Conference of Presidents on 3rd March. I took very careful note on both occasions of the views of the European Parliament. I noted that the Parliament considers, in general, that its views were not given sufficient weight in the first reading. From the debate in the Legal Affairs Committee, I noted that there are differing views on the substance of the proposal, in particular on its content and purpose.
The Commission gave the EP's request of 24 February, which was submitted under Article 55 of the Parliament's internal rules of procedure, careful consideration. But the Commission concluded that, at that stage, regrettably, it could not submit a new proposal, as the Parliament requested. Not because the Commission wished to persist stubbornly with the proposal, but because the Council was on the point of adopting a common position.
As I explained to the Conference of Presidents, the Council reached a political agreement in May 2004 in first reading. The Council has been on the verge of confirming the political agreement in the form of a common position since December 2004. The Commission had supported the political agreement of May 2004. The Commission could, therefore, not go back on its word when the Council was in the process of confirming its common position.
The Council has now made up its mind and adopted its common position. It did so yesterday at the Competitiveness Council. Jeannot Krecké, Chair of the Competitiveness Council, already explained to the Legal Affairs Committee, the reasons behind the Council's stance. It confirmed its common position, primarily for institutional reasons. The Council wanted to avoid a precedent whereby Member States would be seen to be backing away from a deal they had signed up to in May 2004. The Council confirmed its position to show that a deal is a deal and that it was not creating a log-jam on this dossier, in an area which is key for innovation. Jeannot Krecké noted yesterday, when the Council took its decision, that some Member States had concerns on the substance of the text and that these would be addressed in the second reading.
The ball is now very clearly in the European Parliament's court. It's for you to decide how you want to play it. I don't have to remind you of the Parliament's rights: we discussed this in the Conference of Presidents. You can, of course, reject or substantially amend the proposal. If the Parliament decides to reject it, then the Commission will respect your wishes. I will not propose a new directive.
Should you decide to propose amendments, the Commission will give them due consideration. No doubt, there are improvements that can be made. You will understand of course that I cannot speak on behalf of the Council and I would urge the Parliament to engage constructively with the Council in the future on this dossier. I am ready to help in any way.
Before concluding, I would like to say a few words on the substance of the proposal since the European Parliament will now need to turn its attention to this. The Commission proposed to clarify the legal rules on patentability for software-related inventions. This does not include computer programmes or other softwar
Such an issue is a common one: The non-profiting resource is obviously of great benefit to society and the country at large, helping to provide a poole of knowledgable people who can help society in this field.
Just like with all the similar things which serve society but do not make a direct profit the federal government, and therefor indirectly everyone, should contribute to maintaining a resource which is indirectly of use to everyone.
This directive must be stopped at all costs. It still has to go through the European parliment and so really needs as many people as possible to write to their MEP's to stop this.
The consequences are frightening. It would be a serious blow for European software developers.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you've hit the nail on the head!
I'm at university doing an engineering course and at the start of every year, someone will go around the year selling (obviously pirated) versions of AutoCAD and the other Engineering applications.
No-one I know agrees with pirating, although to call it 'stealing' is going right over the top. Its just that no-one as a student can afford to fork out £500 or more just to try out a piece of software.
To me, it is the software companies with monopolies on markets forcing people to use their well overprices software who are stealing.
Well I think its admirable that they are taking the intiative to try and further improve the streets around Cambridge, although last time I visited Cambridge they already looked very good and clean (which is always the most important thing in my view).
I think a further improvement would be to make these robotic bins have 'patches' of pavement/sidewalks to maintain.
The vandalism problem shouldn't be too much a problem, Camrbidge already have ample CCTV cameras overlooking most of the centre streets and a decent casing would stop all but the most determined and persistant idiot (who could then be swooped on by police alerted by the CCTV). Some sort of tracking device could also help prevent theft.
Maybe it will even out, but what about the science which only deals with the present?
E.g. Implementing local government policy:
It seems increasingly common these days for companies to do the research themselves (sometimes it may be claimed 'independant', but ofcourse it is under their parameters and so sure to put them at the top).
then give it to the local government (or the relevant privatised service/utility company) who are all to willing to accept a scheme where they can quote existing research (often misleadingly masquerading it as 'independant' or 'fair' when it is neither,) rather than spend time & money doing there own proper research.
Future science won't help the state or town which has just wasted millions (on say a computer system from a more expensive company) due to incorrect research.
Thats basically the same as the U.S. version.
The only difference being that in the U.S. when the parliment/committee decides it's a stupid idea, the lobbyists then go and have discussions with a few senators regarding campaign funding and the like.
A short time later, the senators go back to re-vote and suddenly just enough of them change their minds to pass the vote.
Both the systems have the exact same effect, its just that in the U.S. it can sometimes cost the lobbyists a little bit more (which is beside the point anyway as its an investment, not a cost, to the big companies).
"[bittorrent] dims the magic of the movies for everyone"
Oh my god, how on earth can they expect people to take them seriously when they translate "could let a relativly insignificant percentage of people see the movie without contributing to the $40 billion empire" to the above quote.
It just goes to show how totally amoral movie distributers and their representatives are and why I'm proud to have several people uploading the movie off my computer right at this moment!
Thats the BSA for you:
To them (the BSA) it doesn't matter if people in these countries can't afford to eat, as long as they and there bankrupt governments don't pirate their software!
Sounds extremist, but the majority of BSA literature concerning piracy in third world countries does definatly convey this sort of ideology.
I despise with the BSA's main argument that software piracy supposably costs jobs and the moral implications of such.
While such a cliam is largely assumed and unsubstanstiated (escpecially in today's healthy software market), it distracts attention from the amount of jobs that must be sacrificed around the world by companies forced to spend ever larger amounts on often over-priced business software.
Especially in the poorer and third world countries where the vast majority of software piracy occurs.
I don't think you can conclusivly say Chernobyl caused more deaths than Bhopal.
Sure, taking the higher estimates of chernobyl (and there are some wild and improbably high estimates for Chernobyl) and the lower estimates for Bhopal would mean Chernobyl killed more. But then again doing the vice versa says that Bhopal killed more.
Wheras its true the Soviet cover-up probably means a larger actual death toll than the official estimates (which I am always surprised at how low they are considering the notoriety), in Bhopal it is still simply unknown how many people actually lived their in the first place and so the figures for that incident have always been considered an under-estimate.
Most best estimates almost always place the death toll estimates for both incidents at between ~10 - ~50 thousand. Only the vested interest groups have placed figures in the 100's of thouands (I have seen estimates for Bhopal which also claim 100's of tousands died).
One last note: The lasting legacy of the 100's of thousands of people which were definatly injured at Bhopal is undoubtably causing more suffering than Chernobyl (which raised cancer rates in the region by an estimated ~3%).
Of course it must be remebered that both these figures pale in comparion to the millions who have died around the world due to air pollution, much of which is generally estimated to be due to electricty production. This makes changes in energy production policy based on the Chernobyl incident extremely naive and deadly.
I escpecially sympathise with this line.
I used to work in a local bar with about 6-8 bar staff during evenings. Just like you described, once an hour the smokers (about 2/3 of staff) would go out the back and have their chat ....oh and a smoke, leaving me and the few others who hope to live past 70 alone on the bar covering for them. After a while I started to go and join them for the extra 10 minutes break per hour, sometimes I would hold a cigerette to look the part and the boss never cared.
When the boss found out I didn't actually smoke he demanded I stay behind the bar while the others went off and smoked.
A couple of months later I quit to go to uni but have always been really annoyed at the way smokers get an extra break every hour or two just because they smoke.
Why is it just smokers? At the time I had an equally unhealthy addiction to Counter-strike, would I have been allowed to go out the back to play Counter-Strike on a laptop for a few minutes once an hour?
What I don't understand is why they are launching from the Barents Sea which as I understand is close to the north pole.
I may be wrong but I had always thought Rocket launches were normally done close to the equator to make the trip to space shorter and hence cheaper. Why then for such a 'cheap' mission have they picked somewhere which will raise there rocket fuel costs?
Many of today's big enviromental issues are mostly about supply.
Enviromentalists go on about the problems associated with emissions from the current rampant energy use but personally I think of even more concern is whats going to happen in 50 years time when even optomistic estimates show oil completely running out (atleast for the next few million years!).
Even if their is any oil left in 50 years (or even in 25-30 years for that matter) it is likely to be so highly priced and with much of it reserved (e.g. for military use) 99% of us simply won't be able to drive cars or do anything which relies on car use (pretty much all of modern life in the USA).
People talk of hydrogen cars etc. but if it can't be done now, why would it suddenly be possible in 25 years time? After all the idea was around 25 years ago and very little progress has been made since.
The same goes for natural gas (the stuff used to heat houses etc.). If its all gone (or even nearly gone) in 60 or so years, how exactly are we going to warm our houses?
Enviromentalists go on and on about the damage the effects of current energy usage will effect our great grand-children but I in my early twenties and hope to be around in 25, 50, even 75 years time (if I'm lucky) and wonder how exactly the world is going to carry on being so 'modern' without any oil or gas?
My (and I gather a lot of other people's) problem with GM crops from an enviromental standpoint is mainly due to the current way they are used.
Currently, GM crops are predominatly crops made resistant to a particular potent and extremely nasty chemical which can then be sprayed all over the countryside as the farmers know their crops won't die.
The fact that everything else dies, and the land is made totally uninhabitable to any non-GM'ed plant or animal, sometimes for many years, is ignored in pursuit of that tiny extra percentage of output.
The fears over GM food maybe unknown but the enviromental damage caused by GM crops is detailed in many independant studies on the issue. This is what has lead to the banning of (or lack of licensing of) GM food in many countries.
So far, it is only the GM companies own studies which show that GM food does not seriously damage the enviroment (as is pretty much always the case with such 'research').
I don't get it, it works on www.google.com but not on the international sites.
Hope they add this feature to these sites soon though.
My god, NASA are really runnign out of money. First, they can't afford to keep their two most succsessful probes going, now they can't afford to give out decent prizes.
The sceptic in me wonders whether NASA may just be hoping no-one will bother, then when they go off in a few years time and spend a dcent few 100 million on the projects, they will be like "look we did what no-one else could again".
After all, these days they are having problems stressing their usefulness to a US government itching to spend NASA's grant money on another war or two.
I think it would be best, rather than look for ways to occupy your mind on your 1-2 hour commute, to get a job closer to home.
Long commutes are very irrational and do extreme amounts of damage to the enviroment at your own expense.
Wouldn't it be better to consider getting a job closer to home or moving to live closer to the place you visit (and currently waist 1-2 hours getting to) almost everyday of the year?
Indeed. It reminds me of the EU fine against Microsoft.
Sure it was the biggest fine the EU have ever given out to a company but what does 500 million count to a company which has however many 10's of billions sitting around in the bank.
Its an ironic problem really. The more companies act unscrupulously means the more money they have available to pay of the fines for that bad behaviour.
5 times larger in overall value.
But I think what was meant was that in terms of per email cost, it is lower than previous spam fines.
In a more ethical world maybe, but Kraft is a large multi-national company which has been the subject of many accusations of immorality and exploitation of labour (to name a couple) and therefor I do not think they deserve charitble ethical treatment.
More to the point, if the situations were reversed, would Kraft give up the website to another multi-national company if the other company had more use for the site?
No way in a million years (for a few million dollars maybe, but such an offer is not on the table in this case). Would Kraft foods include a reference to her website (or that other multi-national company) if Kraft had purchased milka.fr first? Absolutly not! Kraft foods would spend that tiny percentage of their annual legal budget required to fight until they won the right to keep the domain.
I think that Milka Budimir should be allocated state legal aid (or some other form of appropriate legal funding) so she can win future ownership of what is rightfully hers.
If NASA stopped spending 100's of millions outsourcing everything to every company in America which donates money to political campaigns then they wouldn't have to cut such programs in the first place.
"Easy, a patent covering something already patented in the US would be invalid."
I'm no patent expert, but why would this be so?
Surely a US company could take the already US patented item and go to the EPO and say "please patent this" and get it patented.
The item then becomes patented in the EU as in the US and the EPO gets a bit of money. Anyone else trying to patent it would not be able due to obvious prior art.
But I do not see any reason why a US company cannot simply repatent their US software patent in the EU?
Sure the EU will probably disallow the most absurd US software patents, but most would probably get through.
I would love to be proved wrong...
I wrote to my MEP about the subject (A Liberal Democrat). While I was surprised to find the Liberal Democrats in favour of patents (being 'lefty' they usually are agianst big business screwing people over) she did send me an intereasting document on the matter which I'll list:
----------
Start of Document
----------
European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services
Statement to the European Parliament on Computer Implemented Inventions
European Parliament Plenary Session
Strasbourg, 8 March 2005
President,
the Commission is grateful for this opportunity to make a statement on the proposal on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. I already had the opportunity to debate the proposal with the Committee on Legal Affairs on 2nd February and to discuss it with the Conference of Presidents on 3rd March. I took very careful note on both occasions of the views of the European Parliament. I noted that the Parliament considers, in general, that its views were not given sufficient weight in the first reading. From the debate in the Legal Affairs Committee, I noted that there are differing views on the substance of the proposal, in particular on its content and purpose.
The Commission gave the EP's request of 24 February, which was submitted under Article 55 of the Parliament's internal rules of procedure, careful consideration. But the Commission concluded that, at that stage, regrettably, it could not submit a new proposal, as the Parliament requested. Not because the Commission wished to persist stubbornly with the proposal, but because the Council was on the point of adopting a common position.
As I explained to the Conference of Presidents, the Council reached a political agreement in May 2004 in first reading. The Council has been on the verge of confirming the political agreement in the form of a common position since December 2004. The Commission had supported the political agreement of May 2004. The Commission could, therefore, not go back on its word when the Council was in the process of confirming its common position.
The Council has now made up its mind and adopted its common position. It did so yesterday at the Competitiveness Council. Jeannot Krecké, Chair of the Competitiveness Council, already explained to the Legal Affairs Committee, the reasons behind the Council's stance. It confirmed its common position, primarily for institutional reasons. The Council wanted to avoid a precedent whereby Member States would be seen to be backing away from a deal they had signed up to in May 2004. The Council confirmed its position to show that a deal is a deal and that it was not creating a log-jam on this dossier, in an area which is key for innovation. Jeannot Krecké noted yesterday, when the Council took its decision, that some Member States had concerns on the substance of the text and that these would be addressed in the second reading.
The ball is now very clearly in the European Parliament's court. It's for you to decide how you want to play it. I don't have to remind you of the Parliament's rights: we discussed this in the Conference of Presidents. You can, of course, reject or substantially amend the proposal. If the Parliament decides to reject it, then the Commission will respect your wishes. I will not propose a new directive.
Should you decide to propose amendments, the Commission will give them due consideration. No doubt, there are improvements that can be made. You will understand of course that I cannot speak on behalf of the Council and I would urge the Parliament to engage constructively with the Council in the future on this dossier. I am ready to help in any way.
Before concluding, I would like to say a few words on the substance of the proposal since the European Parliament will now need to turn its attention to this. The Commission proposed to clarify the legal rules on patentability for software-related inventions. This does not include computer programmes or other softwar
Such an issue is a common one:
The non-profiting resource is obviously of great benefit to society and the country at large, helping to provide a poole of knowledgable people who can help society in this field.
Just like with all the similar things which serve society but do not make a direct profit the federal government, and therefor indirectly everyone, should contribute to maintaining a resource which is indirectly of use to everyone.
Who are your MEP's?
They deserve to be named and shamed for ignoring a constituant's letter of concern?
Thankfully, I have had a different result. After emailing my local MEP (Liberal Democrats), she replied stating her opposition to the bill.
I will therefor be voting to re-elect her at the next European Election.
This directive must be stopped at all costs. It still has to go through the European parliment and so really needs as many people as possible to write to their MEP's to stop this.
The consequences are frightening. It would be a serious blow for European software developers.
who's 'whe'?