You couldn't sue, Microsoft could sue any competitor as soon as the competition released a product with anything resembling a bug.
The idea was, of course, that I would get that patent and sue Microsoft instead.
They will find it hard to argue prior art, unless of course they can cough up some corporate memo describing exactly this strategy. Wouldn't that be just great?
Arguing that bugs are accidental rather than by design doesn't matter for patents. Besides, accidental theft of my invention is still theft - they should just be more careful or face the consequences;-)
As far as I can tell, it is being forced upon us by the EU. Norway is not a member of the European Union, but are still forced to adopt many of the same laws, this just being the most recent of many.
Just to clarify, after the short but brutal 1998 war in which the EU annexed Norway, a puppet regime was installed that could only implement laws actually made in Brussels.
Wait, that's wrong: Norway chose to join the EC on its own, since presumably it thought doing so gave certain benefits. While this obviously shows there are also downsides, it is hard to believe that Norway had no idea about this beforehand...
No, the point is that you assumed that all software packages can be boiled down to numbers, which is not true.
I think you may be confusing me with someone else, but ok. The question was:
Name one process software can do that can't be duplicated entirely with math.
You answered "art", after which I pointed out in humorous fashion that there is no software process for art. Software cannot replicate the work of Michelangelo, or van Gogh, or any other great artist - it can make exact duplicates but cannot create new pieces of art. This is precisely _because_ all software packages boil down to numbers. There is no "magical ingredient", as you seem to imply.
What about the art in games? Would they not count?
No. That art is not the result of a software process. Instead it was created by a human being who happened to be using software as a tool. By comparison, van Gogh is widely held to be responsible for his paintings, rather than his brush.
Merely wanted to point out that not all software processes can be broken down purely into numbers.
I'm curious to learn what other secret ingredients you expect to find in software, then?
And not all "software patents" are entirely software related, either.
...ehh. Ok. If you say so. Although I'm not sure how that affects the rest of the discussion, to be perfectly honest.
Art.
Go ahead, try duplicating Michelangelo and van Gogh through math. Goodluck.
I'm looking for a software package that can design something like the sistine chapel, for my living room. It appears you know of such a package; could you post a link?
The EU is the most undemocratic system you have ever come across? You may want to read up on North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan (before the invasion), Iraq (idem), China, or Cuba.
I have many solutions, but one I'll toss to you is this: Put together a publication of currently known but unpatented software technologies. That journal will become prior art against any future patent applicant.
I have thought about this, but the task is basically too large. The things that are being patented are too obvious, too common - invisible like a tree in the forest. Until someone takes a patent out on them of course, and pretends it is a unique invention instead of a fact of life.
Consider representing longitude/latitude as integers, as featured in another/. article. How would one 'create' prior art here, if the entire body of existing work (on integer numbers, non-base-10 representations, fixed point arithmetic, floatfixed conversion, the use of numbers to represent coordinates, etc.) isn't sufficient already? Basically one can take any of these "inventions", add another very minor detail, and claim a new "invention" that is equally without value. In this case one could examine further "refinement" by using unsigned integers, perhaps, or by using base-36 integers instead of base-30. Are those actual inventions? Could I really go out and patent those? [shakes head in wonder]
Ahh, so Microsoft is NOT going to use patents against the perceived open source threat because... Why exactly? Just because they haven't used patents as a weapon yet, doesn't mean they won't in the future.
Don't you find it more believable that they are simply waiting for software patents to be established world wide, after which they'll take out all the major open source applications? I.e. Samba, Apache, Open Office, Mozilla, maybe gcc, etc.
Thanks for the info. Sorry if I came over a bit strong; your statement about law-stretching ticked me off but I didn't mean to attack you personally.
I chose the one-click patent because it is an easy example, but I know of a great many others that are just as silly; some examples are here. I have also been asking for "good" software patents on slashdot for a while now, and so far have heard of one that might be good (some people disagree strongly): the RSA patent. Some compression-related patents might also apply in this category (and I suspect the same people would have the same problem with it, being that it is too much a mathematical technique). Actually this might make a good "ask slashdot": name a 'reasonable' software patent. Although it would probably end in flames anyway...
With "patent office" I do indeed mean the american one. We don't hear as much from the EPO, which could simply be down to the americanocentricity of slashdot in general, or maybe it is because the EPO does a better job, I do not appreciate their "stretching" of patents to now also include software patents though, and since they did that I distrust them.
A law comes with an explanation why it is there. An yes, that is the point. Logic sense tells you the same: If it takes me 100k to develop a product and you can copy mine for 10k, you can sell your product way cheaper than I can. I may go broke, while you get a profit.
Actually that is not quite the same thing (sharing knowledge is not the same as protecting investment). So which is it? Do we hand out patents to share knowledge (with limited protection being the reward for doing so?) Or do we reward investment as a principle, with sharing of knowledge as an unintended side effect?
This is a serious question. The way things are going, many people now believe there is some God-given right for some people to own abstract ideas without having to share at all. Consider, for example, ringtones: artists now consider themselves owner of not only their own songs (which is fair enough), but also fairly significant variations on those songs, such as monophonic renditions of just a handful of measures. If we allow this to continue the road is open to argue for unlimited copyright, patentability, etc.
Speaking of copyrights: to my shame I must admit I know the purpose of american copyright (to promote the progress of science and useful art), but not of european copyright. Is it actually the same? Or is there some other notion behind european copyright (which wouldn't surprise me at all, considering the historic reasons for copyrights...)?
There are other factors here too: If some software is available for one platform only (and patents can ensure that), that is something that really can kill platforms.
That is my biggest fear regarding software patents: that there would be a very direct effort by Microsoft to destroy the softwarebase that makes Linux worthwhile (i.e. Samba, Apache, Open Office Mozilla,...). For that reason alone software patents must be considered extremely dangerous.
If politics decides to extend copyrights, let the copyright holder pay for it with an anual fee. At least here in the Netherlands, the annual maintenance fee for patents increases for each year you keep the patent in force longer.
Agreed. Seems I've misjudged you, sorry about that.
As you may have guessed from my username, I'm in the Netherlands as well. I didn't know about the increasing fee though. I assume the patent runs out (fee or no fee) after 20 years anyway? And earlier, if the patent holder chooses to stop payment?
I'm a patent attorney, and we'll always try to stretch the law.
Why, exactly? What's in it for you? Are you not content with the law as it is? Do you 'stretch' other laws as well, or just this one?
Sorry for sounding agressive, but this statement didn't go down well with me... Some professions (sportsmen, engineers,...) should stretch the boundaries of their field, and others (accountants, attorneys, civil servants,...) should stay well within them.
The goal of patent law is to distribute knowledge, facilitating others to achieve the result themselves quicker than having to find things out for themselves
Just curious: is this actually codified into the law itself? Or is this just a twist people (such as yourselves) give to it to make it more palatable to folks like us?
Also, how does that (admittedly noble) goal contrast with idiocy like the one-click patent? Noone is being helped here; instead, the patent is used to destroy competition.
Considering that the people who speak out against software patents are precisely those that are supposed to benefit from them, how can you (or anyone) defend the concept at all?
The only exception I can think of where software patents contribute above what the skilled programmer (who can think up things to program faster than he can program it) can come up himself, is compression technologies.
There are a thousand things that could be mentioned here which take significant investment on the part of the programmer, and that could be helped by patents. If the patent office limited itself to patenting those "hard" parts I suspect very few people would complain.
However, that is not what happens. The patent office allows patents on all the easy, obvious bits (even after the technique was seen in the wild a decade or more before), thereby making it impossible for us to continue to use those techniques even though we have been using them for a long time already. And then they have the gall to say that someone else (i.e. the _victim_) should sort it out, by taking it to court!
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all Britons were like that; I know it is just a (rather vocal) minority. I saw one of them on TV the other day, debating the merits of unified foreign politics for all of europe. Unsurprisingly, he didn't like it much. However, he also took the opportunity to spit bile and venom about "the EU project", saying it was a complete disaster.
In the end he convinced noone. The audience voted on the subject before and after the debate, and while there was a fifty-fifty split before the debate, it was more like 75 (in favor of unified foreign politics)-25 afterwards.
...the EU reps don't seem to behave as if they're directly responsible to the people, and the people don't seem to treat the EU elections as if they're electing people to govern them.
The European Parlement, i.e. our elected representatives, voted against software patents. It is the national governments (who are also our elected representatives; non of the EU countries are dictatorships) who try to push this through.
Maybe this mindset needs to change.
Maybe people should know what they are talking about. It is easy to point at "the EU" doing bad things, but in this case we should definitely blame the various national governments for attempting to push software patents through, _against the will of the EU_.
I mean, I'm not in Europe but from everything I've heard the governments, the EU reps and the people of Europe all approach the EU as if it is an arbitration body between governments, yet it's now making decisions-- such as the patentability or nonpatentability of software-- which very much directly effect the people of Europe on a day to day basis and should not be made by a body which does not unambiguously feel it is directly responsible to the people.
I have no idea where you got that idea, but it is much, much more, and I dare say many people here in europe are very much aware of that.
I certainly feel I'm a _european_ first, and Dutch second. National governments are still important and all that, and I have a healthy distrust of any French policy, but in general the EU is a good thing. Within its borders I am free to travel, live, and work where I please; in other European countries I am not 'some foreigner' but part of the same crowd. Admittedly, age plays an important role here - younger people think of this as normal, older people don't do that so easily.
And together the european nations can do things none of them could do on its own, both technically (A380, the space program) and politically (telling the US or China where to stick it).
Things in the EU are still taking shape of course but, well, that just means that this is the best time to address these things. I don't think it's a bad thing for the EU to centralize power but if it's done, it needs to be done in a very deliberate and careful way.
Am I making sense?
Yes, absolutely. Since the EU is undergoing chance, there will always be individuals (or outside powers) that will seek to influence this process to their personal advantage. It is very much up to us to make sure this doesn't happen. As with the software patents, we will continue to have to monitor everything that happens... just as in any other democracy.
Lemme guess you are british right? At least this sounds like exactly the kind of drivel people get spoonfed over on the other side of the channel.
Europe; the EU is a fundementally about 2 things. a kind of post WWII guilt and establishing a new super power (particularly with collapse of the Soviet Union)
Guilt has nothing to do with. We europeans have learned the hard way that fighting major conflicts on your own soil is not generally speaking A Good Thing. The EU, quite rightly, seeks to make sure that we will not have a WW3 here. And it has succeeded spectacularly, as witnessed by the total lack of armed conflict within the borders of the EU. The alternative would have been Germany, France, and the UK at each others' throat constantly, and quite possibly a new inter-european war sometime in the past fifty years.
Living as we do in an era of peace (at least within our own borders), there has been no need to set aside resources for waging a potential large scale conflict, leading to significant prosperity within the EU. This prosperity appeals to the countries around us, causing them to seek membership status as well. To obtain this we require them to pass laws that make sense in a modern democracy; thus the EU has caused a very significant increase in the democratic content of this region.
The EU also seeks to become a superpower, not in the way of the US or former USSR (i.e. by being able to make war on everyone and everything), but rather as an economic power. And what's wrong with that anyway? Is there some unwritten law that says we should kneel to the US for the rest of eternity?
Seperately but related the Euro is a flop and has damaged several economies
Care to prove that? Making stuff up is easy, but so far the euro has been a solid coin that is rapidly replacing the dollar as the worlds' currency.
Like the USSR Europe is seeking to absorb more new countries all the time.
No, it isn't. Countries are fighting to be allowed in. Europe has not taken any country against its will, and will let go of any country that wants to leave (as per the new constitution).
People (especially in the US) might look fondly toward how Europe treats the Software Patents issue and other related subjects, but understand that any little thing that Europe does that seems good, there are 20 things which are imposed on member countries against the will of those people that are bad...
Feel free to name these twenty things, if you can....by completely incompetent and corrupt Eurocrats that have no right to be interfering in how other countries run their affairs.
Actually they do have that right. All countries involved signed treaties to that purpose.
It is true there have been cases of corruption. The important thing is that this is considered unacceptable, and measures are being taken to stop it from occurring again.
And besides, I'd be interested to hear about political bodies that have never experienced any corruption...
Yes I said corrupt and I stand by it. The whole European project is ridiled with corruption.
The word "project" for the EU unmasks you as a british euro-hater. I don't really mind, but please do understand that your leaders are lying to you about the EU for their own political reasons.
Based on his description, I believe the grandparent is referring to the X-33, also known as "venture star".
As for listening to old timers, sometimes it is a good idea to listen to experience, and sometimes it is better to avoid those who are stuck in a certain mode of thinking that may have been obsoleted by advances in knowledge.
You are putting words into my mouth. I never said the nazi attrocities were unusual or worthy of particular consideration; just that we should remember them. That doesn't lessen our need to remember or condemn other atrocities.
In Europe we choose to remember Auschwitz because for us it is a bit more personal, and because it is an event that happened in living memory. As for you, it is entirely up to you if you give a damn or not. Maybe you are in the former USSR, and know the horror stories of your grandparents. I'd understand if you cared more about that, then.
Hell, genocides are taking place all the time.
There's a fine piece of commentary on the human condition...
Slashdot Mirror
The idea was, of course, that I would get that patent and sue Microsoft instead.
They will find it hard to argue prior art, unless of course they can cough up some corporate memo describing exactly this strategy. Wouldn't that be just great?
Arguing that bugs are accidental rather than by design doesn't matter for patents. Besides, accidental theft of my invention is still theft - they should just be more careful or face the consequences ;-)
"1: the invention contains a number of flaws that deteriorate over time, eventually coercing the customer to upgrade to a new version." etc. etc.
Just imagine: you could sue anyone who creates a software product that has bugs in it!
Just to clarify, after the short but brutal 1998 war in which the EU annexed Norway, a puppet regime was installed that could only implement laws actually made in Brussels.
Wait, that's wrong: Norway chose to join the EC on its own, since presumably it thought doing so gave certain benefits. While this obviously shows there are also downsides, it is hard to believe that Norway had no idea about this beforehand...
I think you may be confusing me with someone else, but ok. The question was:
Name one process software can do that can't be duplicated entirely with math.
You answered "art", after which I pointed out in humorous fashion that there is no software process for art. Software cannot replicate the work of Michelangelo, or van Gogh, or any other great artist - it can make exact duplicates but cannot create new pieces of art. This is precisely _because_ all software packages boil down to numbers. There is no "magical ingredient", as you seem to imply.
What about the art in games? Would they not count?
No. That art is not the result of a software process. Instead it was created by a human being who happened to be using software as a tool. By comparison, van Gogh is widely held to be responsible for his paintings, rather than his brush.
Merely wanted to point out that not all software processes can be broken down purely into numbers.
I'm curious to learn what other secret ingredients you expect to find in software, then?
And not all "software patents" are entirely software related, either.
I'm looking for a software package that can design something like the sistine chapel, for my living room. It appears you know of such a package; could you post a link?
Moet wel lukken ;-)
Absolutely! And _then_ we can see if maybe we should "meet in the middle", so to speak. Just like the pro-swpat groups tell us to.
Presumably someone explained to them it is the location where you use/sell the software, rather than where you produce it, that counts...
Do you have a link?
I do the same thing, but the long cable is a real problem. People complain, especially when I board a plane with it.
In case you are confused by this, I was referring to the inevitable dupe... Or something ;-)
I have thought about this, but the task is basically too large. The things that are being patented are too obvious, too common - invisible like a tree in the forest. Until someone takes a patent out on them of course, and pretends it is a unique invention instead of a fact of life.
Consider representing longitude/latitude as integers, as featured in another /. article. How would one 'create' prior art here, if the entire body of existing work (on integer numbers, non-base-10 representations, fixed point arithmetic, floatfixed conversion, the use of numbers to represent coordinates, etc.) isn't sufficient already? Basically one can take any of these "inventions", add another very minor detail, and claim a new "invention" that is equally without value. In this case one could examine further "refinement" by using unsigned integers, perhaps, or by using base-36 integers instead of base-30. Are those actual inventions? Could I really go out and patent those? [shakes head in wonder]
Don't you find it more believable that they are simply waiting for software patents to be established world wide, after which they'll take out all the major open source applications? I.e. Samba, Apache, Open Office, Mozilla, maybe gcc, etc.
I chose the one-click patent because it is an easy example, but I know of a great many others that are just as silly; some examples are here. I have also been asking for "good" software patents on slashdot for a while now, and so far have heard of one that might be good (some people disagree strongly): the RSA patent. Some compression-related patents might also apply in this category (and I suspect the same people would have the same problem with it, being that it is too much a mathematical technique). Actually this might make a good "ask slashdot": name a 'reasonable' software patent. Although it would probably end in flames anyway...
With "patent office" I do indeed mean the american one. We don't hear as much from the EPO, which could simply be down to the americanocentricity of slashdot in general, or maybe it is because the EPO does a better job, I do not appreciate their "stretching" of patents to now also include software patents though, and since they did that I distrust them.
A law comes with an explanation why it is there. An yes, that is the point. Logic sense tells you the same: If it takes me 100k to develop a product and you can copy mine for 10k, you can sell your product way cheaper than I can. I may go broke, while you get a profit.
Actually that is not quite the same thing (sharing knowledge is not the same as protecting investment). So which is it? Do we hand out patents to share knowledge (with limited protection being the reward for doing so?) Or do we reward investment as a principle, with sharing of knowledge as an unintended side effect?
This is a serious question. The way things are going, many people now believe there is some God-given right for some people to own abstract ideas without having to share at all. Consider, for example, ringtones: artists now consider themselves owner of not only their own songs (which is fair enough), but also fairly significant variations on those songs, such as monophonic renditions of just a handful of measures. If we allow this to continue the road is open to argue for unlimited copyright, patentability, etc.
Speaking of copyrights: to my shame I must admit I know the purpose of american copyright (to promote the progress of science and useful art), but not of european copyright. Is it actually the same? Or is there some other notion behind european copyright (which wouldn't surprise me at all, considering the historic reasons for copyrights...)?
There are other factors here too: If some software is available for one platform only (and patents can ensure that), that is something that really can kill platforms.
That is my biggest fear regarding software patents: that there would be a very direct effort by Microsoft to destroy the softwarebase that makes Linux worthwhile (i.e. Samba, Apache, Open Office Mozilla, ...). For that reason alone software patents must be considered extremely dangerous.
If politics decides to extend copyrights, let the copyright holder pay for it with an anual fee. At least here in the Netherlands, the annual maintenance fee for patents increases for each year you keep the patent in force longer.
Agreed. Seems I've misjudged you, sorry about that.
As you may have guessed from my username, I'm in the Netherlands as well. I didn't know about the increasing fee though. I assume the patent runs out (fee or no fee) after 20 years anyway? And earlier, if the patent holder chooses to stop payment?
Why, exactly? What's in it for you? Are you not content with the law as it is? Do you 'stretch' other laws as well, or just this one?
Sorry for sounding agressive, but this statement didn't go down well with me... Some professions (sportsmen, engineers, ...) should stretch the boundaries of their field, and others (accountants, attorneys, civil servants, ...) should stay well within them.
The goal of patent law is to distribute knowledge, facilitating others to achieve the result themselves quicker than having to find things out for themselves
Just curious: is this actually codified into the law itself? Or is this just a twist people (such as yourselves) give to it to make it more palatable to folks like us?
Also, how does that (admittedly noble) goal contrast with idiocy like the one-click patent? Noone is being helped here; instead, the patent is used to destroy competition.
Considering that the people who speak out against software patents are precisely those that are supposed to benefit from them, how can you (or anyone) defend the concept at all?
The only exception I can think of where software patents contribute above what the skilled programmer (who can think up things to program faster than he can program it) can come up himself, is compression technologies.
There are a thousand things that could be mentioned here which take significant investment on the part of the programmer, and that could be helped by patents. If the patent office limited itself to patenting those "hard" parts I suspect very few people would complain.
However, that is not what happens. The patent office allows patents on all the easy, obvious bits (even after the technique was seen in the wild a decade or more before), thereby making it impossible for us to continue to use those techniques even though we have been using them for a long time already. And then they have the gall to say that someone else (i.e. the _victim_) should sort it out, by taking it to court!
You'll have to read the article to figure out what that means ;-)
Wow, where to begin... Here, perhaps. Straight cucumbers indeed...
In the end he convinced noone. The audience voted on the subject before and after the debate, and while there was a fifty-fifty split before the debate, it was more like 75 (in favor of unified foreign politics)-25 afterwards.
The European Parlement, i.e. our elected representatives, voted against software patents. It is the national governments (who are also our elected representatives; non of the EU countries are dictatorships) who try to push this through.
Maybe this mindset needs to change.
Maybe people should know what they are talking about. It is easy to point at "the EU" doing bad things, but in this case we should definitely blame the various national governments for attempting to push software patents through, _against the will of the EU_.
I mean, I'm not in Europe but from everything I've heard the governments, the EU reps and the people of Europe all approach the EU as if it is an arbitration body between governments, yet it's now making decisions-- such as the patentability or nonpatentability of software-- which very much directly effect the people of Europe on a day to day basis and should not be made by a body which does not unambiguously feel it is directly responsible to the people.
I have no idea where you got that idea, but it is much, much more, and I dare say many people here in europe are very much aware of that.
I certainly feel I'm a _european_ first, and Dutch second. National governments are still important and all that, and I have a healthy distrust of any French policy, but in general the EU is a good thing. Within its borders I am free to travel, live, and work where I please; in other European countries I am not 'some foreigner' but part of the same crowd. Admittedly, age plays an important role here - younger people think of this as normal, older people don't do that so easily.
And together the european nations can do things none of them could do on its own, both technically (A380, the space program) and politically (telling the US or China where to stick it).
Things in the EU are still taking shape of course but, well, that just means that this is the best time to address these things. I don't think it's a bad thing for the EU to centralize power but if it's done, it needs to be done in a very deliberate and careful way. Am I making sense?
Yes, absolutely. Since the EU is undergoing chance, there will always be individuals (or outside powers) that will seek to influence this process to their personal advantage. It is very much up to us to make sure this doesn't happen. As with the software patents, we will continue to have to monitor everything that happens... just as in any other democracy.
Europe; the EU is a fundementally about 2 things. a kind of post WWII guilt and establishing a new super power (particularly with collapse of the Soviet Union)
Guilt has nothing to do with. We europeans have learned the hard way that fighting major conflicts on your own soil is not generally speaking A Good Thing. The EU, quite rightly, seeks to make sure that we will not have a WW3 here. And it has succeeded spectacularly, as witnessed by the total lack of armed conflict within the borders of the EU. The alternative would have been Germany, France, and the UK at each others' throat constantly, and quite possibly a new inter-european war sometime in the past fifty years.
Living as we do in an era of peace (at least within our own borders), there has been no need to set aside resources for waging a potential large scale conflict, leading to significant prosperity within the EU. This prosperity appeals to the countries around us, causing them to seek membership status as well. To obtain this we require them to pass laws that make sense in a modern democracy; thus the EU has caused a very significant increase in the democratic content of this region.
The EU also seeks to become a superpower, not in the way of the US or former USSR (i.e. by being able to make war on everyone and everything), but rather as an economic power. And what's wrong with that anyway? Is there some unwritten law that says we should kneel to the US for the rest of eternity?
Seperately but related the Euro is a flop and has damaged several economies
Care to prove that? Making stuff up is easy, but so far the euro has been a solid coin that is rapidly replacing the dollar as the worlds' currency.
Like the USSR Europe is seeking to absorb more new countries all the time.
No, it isn't. Countries are fighting to be allowed in. Europe has not taken any country against its will, and will let go of any country that wants to leave (as per the new constitution).
People (especially in the US) might look fondly toward how Europe treats the Software Patents issue and other related subjects, but understand that any little thing that Europe does that seems good, there are 20 things which are imposed on member countries against the will of those people that are bad...
Feel free to name these twenty things, if you can. ...by completely incompetent and corrupt Eurocrats that have no right to be interfering in how other countries run their affairs.
Actually they do have that right. All countries involved signed treaties to that purpose.
It is true there have been cases of corruption. The important thing is that this is considered unacceptable, and measures are being taken to stop it from occurring again.
And besides, I'd be interested to hear about political bodies that have never experienced any corruption...
Yes I said corrupt and I stand by it. The whole European project is ridiled with corruption.
The word "project" for the EU unmasks you as a british euro-hater. I don't really mind, but please do understand that your leaders are lying to you about the EU for their own political reasons.
Because, when your vehicle disintegrates while entering the atmosphere at mach 20 or so, you _really_ need some way of leaving it...
As for listening to old timers, sometimes it is a good idea to listen to experience, and sometimes it is better to avoid those who are stuck in a certain mode of thinking that may have been obsoleted by advances in knowledge.
The new, kinder, gentler Microsoft that wants noone to hate them. Read all about it here...
Gee, kids these days...
In Europe we choose to remember Auschwitz because for us it is a bit more personal, and because it is an event that happened in living memory. As for you, it is entirely up to you if you give a damn or not. Maybe you are in the former USSR, and know the horror stories of your grandparents. I'd understand if you cared more about that, then.
Hell, genocides are taking place all the time.
There's a fine piece of commentary on the human condition...