Summary: Canonical ought to offer some form of disclosure about patent deals with the MPEG cartel
FOLLOWING the KnowRi§ht conference which we wrote about in the morning (FFII has a whole page about it), the president of the FFII linked to this article from Slashdot, which in turn links to a Microsoft booster from The Register. We have already written about this article and sort of defended Canonical’s position when it comes to H.264 patents*. FFII’s president, however, reacted differently and wrote: “Time to book BoycottUbuntu.com? How much did Canonical spent on the H264 patent license for Ubuntu? Ask them please.”
He later asked Canonical’s COO, but has received no answer yet.
Popey (from Ubuntu) passed along the message that “Microsoft patents portable applications,” as reported by Microsoft boosters.
On Tuesday, Microsoft was awarded a U.S. patent for “portable applications.” The description of this innovative technology? Running an executable file from a flash device.
The accompanying remark says: “Goodbye portable Firefox?”
In other news, a European/British lawyers’ blog hosts this piece about “Removable Features of Operating Systems”; it covers patents as follows:
It is long established that intellectual property law applies to computer software. Source code written by programmers is subject to copyright and, where programmers are employees, the copyright is almost always assigned to their employer. The processes and techniques embodied in that source code may be further protected by patents. Individual programmers or, as is more common these days, teams of programmers invent technical solutions to problems, and those solutions may be protected by patents. Again, a patent will usually be assigned to the employer, if any, of the inventor, but sometimes to some other organization.
Software patents have no room in Europe and what’s baffling is that Canonical pays for software patents, despite the fact that it’s based in the UK. What gives?
That having been said, earlier today the president of the FFII said that the “European Commission [is] still using the undefined term FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory), pushing for patents.” He linked to this new article:
Uncertainty over royalty payments is a bugbear of the wireless industry, as seen by the current nervousness over the IPR burden that will materialize in LTE devices. Once standards are set and start to appear in commercial products, patent holders often emerge from the woodwork to claim their fee, leading to complex cross-licensing negotiations and sometimes lawsuits and hefty royalty fees.
Many bodies, particularly the European standards agency ETSI, have been trying to get patent holders to declare their holdings in a would-be standard upfront, and the European Union is now offering a powerful incentive to turn this into best practise. The EU says companies that provide technology that could be adopted in industry standards could be exempted from strict European antitrust laws if they set out, from the start, the maximum fees they would charge for their patents.
According to the Reuters news agency, the draft rules contain benchmarks to assess the level of FRAND licensing fees. The Commission said companies would need to disclose their intellectual property rights before their patents were included in standards. “No or unclear disclosure obligations may furthermore give incentives to ‘patent ambushes’, that is companies hiding patents until industry is locked in and thereafter refusing to license or request exorbitant fees,” the statement said.
As we pointed out before, heavy lobbying from Microsoft has bamboozled Neelie Kroes into accepting software patents through (x)RAND [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Does the H.264 cartel utilise the same RAND trick which Microsoft is already exploiting? █
“Digital society depends upon open standards and interoperability. And with this in mind, public organizations should practice what they promote. If they don’t use open standards, why should citizens?”
* Canonical paid to appease the patent troll, but the problem is that it legitimises an attack on other distributions like Fedora, Mandriva, and even Asterisk distributions.
Send this to a friend
Summary: NSW tax office is looking for a GroupWise replacement
GroupWise is losing business quicker than it gains any. Here is a new report which suggests that Novell will almost certainly be dumped. It is not known yet which product will replace Novell’s GroupWise, but NSW makes another mistake [1, 2] by sending communication to be parsed and spied on by another company.
Microsoft’s BPOS (business productivity suite) and Google Apps on trial to potentially replace the OSR’s in-house Novell GroupWise system.
Government departments should never rely on remotely-hosted services. Never. It’s about control. █
“Stop Microsoft through government antitrust enforcement now or say goodbye to new products and the openness of the Internet. Gates will own everything, and collect a fee on every imaginable product and service in cyberspace from home finance to a virtual visit to the Louvre. And forget about getting these products and services someplace else. Competitors won’t exist.”
–Antitrust attorney Gary Reback
Send this to a friend
Summary: ABC News is slamming Apple for its behaviour; Apple is sued again for patent infringement
MICROSOFT’S very own Encarta (now facing the firing line) defines “cult” as “a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader.” Another definition is “an extreme or excessive admiration for a person, philosophy of life, or activity” and “a person, philosophy, or activity regarded with extreme or excessive admiration.” In sociology terms, a cult is an “elite group: a self-identified group of people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective.”
“Yes, Apple does have AstroTurfers, perhaps not as many as Microsoft’s.”Many things can be characterised as a “cult”, including Microsoft, Apple, and perhaps even GNU/Linux groups (there is no single group), but the difference we wish to stress here is the role companies play. In the case of GNU/Linux, there is no company encouraging a cult-like behaviour; no single company owns Linux and GNU is not even a company at all; it’s antithetical to it. Now, compare this to Microsoft’s army of AstroTurfers and Apple’s fake hype campaigns which are facilitated by sites like Roughly Drafted, which are getting inside access as a reward for their borderline-AstroTurfing for Apple. Yes, Apple does have AstroTurfers, perhaps not as many as Microsoft’s.
There is a new article about Apple’s abuse of a blogger from Gizmodo — a subject that we covered in the following posts (in order of appearance):
To quote from the new article which appeared in ABC (mainstream media by all means):
Instead, fearful of being blackballed and missing the big story, and afraid of being swarm attacked by the legions of Apple fanatics who act as unpaid flacks to anyone who dares to challenge the perfection of the company or the divinity of its founder — and most of all, not having the muscle of the old-time media empires — today’s press largely has turned into the company’s full-time lapdog and lickspittle. Some well-known reporters have built entire careers out of being Apple promoters — and thus being given insider access.
The latest word is that Chen and Gizmodo have lawyered up and are considering suing the police. Good. And they should go after REACT as well, to the point that it is disbanded and replaced by another entity that isn’t a tool of big corporations.
Meanwhile, those Apple fanatics out there (including a few big-name bloggers) that are defending this assault on liberty should be deeply ashamed of themselves for being willing to trade the First Amendment for a few cool techno-baubles.
Apple has gone way too far and at the bottom of this post we add a fairly new message regarding Apple’s behaviour and Steve Jobs’ vanity. Apple apologists are a subject that we covered last month.
Over at IDG, there is this new post titled “Shakespeare weighs in on Apple/Gizmodo” and it contains the following:
In early 2007 he seemed none too pleased with the Microsoft/Novell alliance, among other things.
But focusing again on Apple, Florian sent us this press release earlier today:
Nokia announced that it has today filed a complaint against Apple with the Federal District Court in the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging that Apple iPhone and iPad 3G products infringe five important Nokia patents.
There is already press coverage of that.
Nokia, not content with the pair of existing patent actions in Delaware, has filed another action for five patent infringements. This time it’s in Wisconsin, presumably for variety.
We have already written many posts about the Nokia-Apple patent situation [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. Since Apple sues Linux/Android and Nokia says that it would protect Linux using its patents, a lot has changed since this confrontation began and we have to take Nokia’s side. Apple seems to have more or less sidled with Microsoft, which is a proprietary software ally with joint interests in harming Linux. █
From USENET (for context):
Re: [News] [Rival] Apple Does a Lot of Evil and Continues to Get bad Publicity
From: Homer / Slated
Date: Wednesday 05 May 2010 18:44:21
>> His only “sin” is founding a company that makes great products.
Apple’s greatest “product” is their indoctrination of sheeple like you, such that even the Microsoft faithful can’t see beyond Messiah Jobs’ “shiny-shiny” propaganda, to the political slime underneath.
Here’s a good article on that “product”:
Then again, it’s people like you who shovelled that slime in there to begin with, so it’s doubtful that you’d be repelled by it.
>> Your sins are helping an oil drilling firm pollute the ocean
Please don’t embarrass yourself by discussing things which you obviously don’t understand in the slightest. A gas FPSO, such as the one I worked on, does nothing to pollute the ocean.
Your continued and desperate attempt to stigmatise me with this is futile and pathetic.
You probably pollute the ocean more than that FPSO. You certainly pollute COLA, and the rest of the world, with your sick ideologies.
>> and exploit Nigerians
It’s ironic that, out of all the many contracts I’ve done in the offshore industry over the years, you should choose to focus on the one which not only entailed the least corruption by far (not to mention the least pollution), on the part of the oil and drilling companies concerned, but in fact saw those companies exploited by others – specifically the government of Nigeria, a body which, I can assure you, the people of Nigeria have much more to be fearful of than western oil and drilling companies.
Again, you simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
Paying Nigerian workers more than double the money they’d make elsewhere in Nigeria, providing them with pristine accommodation, feeding them four square meals a day, and providing them with a full range of entertainment facilities on board, is not exactly what I’d call “exploitation”, and it’s certainly more than they could expect from their corrupt government.
But the general assertion that the oil industry is corrupt is certainly true, as it is for every other industry, or anything else which has the potential for exploitation. Every one of us is surrounded by corruption in every aspect of our lives; there’s simply no way to avoid it, except perhaps to live in a cave or commit suicide. That then leaves people only two choices, to either accept or fight this corruption, whilst nonetheless continuing to live and work in an environment dominated by it.
However, evil bastards like you contend that fighting corruption whilst still living and working in a corrupt environment is somehow “hypocrisy”, essentially precluding everyone in the world from the moral right to speak out against corruption. Naturally this artificial paradox is very useful to people like you, who seek to promote that corruption, and defend it against its detractors, by falsely stigmatising them as “hypocrites”.
Am I getting warm, DooFy?
Of course, exposing your deceptions won’t actually stop you, will it, any more than prosecuting Microsoft and Apple will stop their racketeering? That’s why even after years of being exposed as a thug and a fraud working for the cause of a twisted political agenda, you’re still polluting COLA with your filth: Your agenda hasn’t changed just because you’ve been exposed, and neither has Microsoft’s or Apple’s just because they’ve been prosecuted.
The only way to stop them, and you, is to take away the power that fuels their corruption … money. Companies that run their business like gangsters need to be shut down permanently: Forcibly liquidated and stripped of their assets. The knock-on effect of that is people like you would no longer have a corrupt cause to “evangelise”, and you and your kind would crawl back into the slime pit you slithered out of.
>> and frothing vicious hatred for people that don’t agree with you
>> about computer software.
“Don’t agree with me about computer software” doesn’t cut it, DooFy, as you damn-well know. The core of my doctrine has nothing specifically to do with software, it is simply that all knowledge should be Free, because no one person or company is the exclusive source of any given knowledge, and therefore to claim exclusive “ownership” of it is a lie.
Unrelated to that is the principle that businesses should not be allowed to behave like a bunch of gangsters running a racketeering operation, “competing” in a way that has nothing to do with the merit of their products or services, but instead relies completely on fear, sabotage, threats, bribery and extortion.
Microsoft and Apple violate both doctrines, a whole swath of other moral principles, and often the law.
You are apparently not only content to ignore their criminal behaviour, but actually revel in it, because of you are utterly committed to the principles of exploitation, selfishness and greed.
The best defence you can then offer to justify your vile attitude is that “other people do it”, pointing the finger at /me/, when in fact you know that is no justification at all, even if your accusations had any merit or were anything more than desperate speculation and wishful thinking. Not that slander ever actually needs any merit to cause the desired damage to its intended victim, or course, which is why you continue with your lies unabated.
>> He’s a winner
He’s a gangster, no better than Ballmer. His illegal misuse of the police as his own private security company, and his comments about Theora proves that, if not his decades of thuggish behaviour towards others who merely tried to support Apple products, but were rewarded with an iron fist. Indeed, Apple is on the verge of yet another prosecution, concerning Jobs thrusting his iron fist into the face of iPhone developers.
His “winnings” are the spoils of that gangsterism, just like Microsoft’s are the spoils of Ballmer’s and Gates’. Only someone who thinks like a gangster, sympathises with thugs and criminals, and scorns their innocent victims, could perceive this as “winning”.
> you’re a loser.
Thanks to Microsoft and Apple, and various other “IP” thugs in the industry like Alcatel Lucent, I and everyone else have lost some of our freedom. Again, only someone who thinks like a criminal would condemn the victims of crime as “losers”.
> Quick Nurse, Damp Fungal Sponge’s medication is wearing off and his
> tin foil hat is slipping!
DooFy is just clutching at straws as usual, in a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible.
Send this to a friend
Summary: When given the chance, AMD should have let a real Linux company like Red Hat handle the free/libre ATI driver
Novell does not really care about software freedom. SUSE does care about it, Novell does not. These two entities are still separable because their philosophies differ.
As we pointed out twice this week, RadeonHD is apparently dying [1, 2], but it is important to understand the Microsoft factor, the Microsoft-imposed DRM mess, but most importantly the fights between Novell and AMD (wars of words). In fact, AMD almost gave the project to Red Hat, which already does fantastic work with Nouveau.
Phoronix takes a look at what happened to RadeonHD and there is focus on Novell’s role.
Earlier this week we reported that Novell was finally dropped the RadeonHD driver from openSUSE as they switch to using the xf86-video-ati driver with kernel mode-setting (KMS) support over using their in-house R500/600/700 driver they had developed as part of AMD’s initial open-source strategy for Linux. Whenever bringing up the RadeonHD driver at Phoronix it generally leads to a heated discussion in our forums between community members, developers, and other representatives over the history of the RadeonHD driver and what really was its purpose, among other dissenting views.
In this most recent discussion, Luc Verhaegen who formerly worked for Novell and was one of the few Novell engineers that worked heavily on the xf86-video-radeonhd driver from the beginning, made several more claims. Among these claims were “We at SUSE wanted to do what was best for the free software desktop, and it’s a real shame how politics and shortsighted egotripping wasted a lot of resources and destroyed many of the good and honest advancements and goals of this project.” In one of the replies, AMD’s John Bridgman had then said, “AMD senior management approved a plan that was developed jointly between “AMD people”, “ATI people”, Dave and Alex. I know you guys worked hard on a separate plan but that was not the plan that we were following.” What though was the original, “separate” SUSE plan for a free software ATI driver?
Novell’s obligation to Linux is not what it used to be. Novell’s contribution to it has gone down quite sharply (Microsoft patches hardly count) and the fight against SCO can also be seen as a selfish one (it need to be justified to shareholders after all). UNIX is worth a lot of money, so Novell is defending UNIX, not Linux. Regarding the Acacia case, watch Novell trying to sneak in and claim more credit by contacting bloggers.
Novell, by the way, appears not to have commented on this win in a press release. Update: One of Novell’s PR representatives contacted me. He agreed that Novell hadn’t sent out a release on this topic. They did, on the other hand, publish something on their PR blog about this (see http://www.novell.com/prblogs/?p=2406 for more information.)
As an aside, this approach to releasing information doesn’t work very well unless all of the intended recipients come around and visit the blog from time to time. Since we’re tracking well over 100 virtualization suppliers and well over 200 cloud computing suppliers, visiting all of their blogs would be a huge investment in time and effort
As we pointed out before, only Red Hat issued a press release and Novell just issued a belated message in its PR blog. We covered this in:
Red Hat is a Linux company. Novell is… well, a whole lot of stuff, mostly proprietary software. This morning we showed a video where Professor Eben Moglen said that Microsoft would call its GNU/Linux distribution “Novell”. █
Send this to a friend
Picture by Taifarious1, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License.
Summary: Another update from New Zealand and interesting developments from Europe, where Spain stands in Michel Barnier’s way
THE patent situation in New Zealand currently resembles the situation in Europe. Multinationals and lawsuits-loving lawyers are trying to use or even abuse the system for their own agenda to be advanced and interests promoted at the expense of citizens’ (including developers). We find some of these people in Twitter. “Twitterer suggest general dislike of patents is crypto-luddism,” writes Carlo Piana, but “It’s the opposite: current system stifles innovation. [Software patents] hundredfold so…”
The legal 'industry' in New Zealand has been promoting software patents in New Zealand not because they would be beneficial to the software industry (which overwhelmingly rejects them, based on numerous new polls). Someone called “IPMentor” (probably from the field of law, as the name may suggest) has just gotten this opinion published in the press. It contains many common fallacies in there (mostly easy to spot). To give one example:
The Uniservices conclusion is just about opposite to the MED policy driver behind the current Bill – patents are to be discouraged because their benefits will flow overseas.
And what of the software ban? Well, the select committee has had a bit of a bob each way. The amended Bill bans patents for “computer programs.” But the explanatory note says their intention is not to ban patents for “embedded software” – and then says trying to define the difference between the two was too hard, so the intellectual property office should be left to draft appropriate guidelines.
No, a bill which permits software patenting would have the completely opposite effect because it would put New Zealand in a position of disadvantage, it gives its developers no safety from outside coercion. Ideally, the Bill should not just ban software patents; there are loopholes which need to be closed too, ones involving phrases or depictions like “on a device”.
Over in Europe, a debate takes place regarding software patents as well. It seems like Florian was the first to cover it.
I participated in the KnowRi§ht conference in Vienna, Austria, where I was invited on ultrashort notice to give a speech on “Software Patents, Standards & Competition”.
The big controversy at that conference clearly related to the future of the European patent (and patent court) system. I will report on that in a later post. Previously I’d like to summarize the outline of intellectual property rights matters on the EU agenda that a European Commission official gave at the conference.
Before I get into details of Dr. Jens Gaster’s comments, I have to mention that he pointed out at the beginning of his speech that he was not acting as a spokesman of the institution that employs him (the European Commission) but instead in a personal capacity as a lecturer. It was an academic conference and Dr. Gaster continues to pursue an academic career in addition to his work for the Commission.
There is more here about the FFII’s presentation (titled “What’s wrong with the UPLS?”).
The FFII criticizes that an incredibly powerful, international patent and patent court system would then be able to take controversial decisions while there wouldn’t be a single powerful and democratically elected legislator that could correct undesirable developments through new and better laws.
The FFII doesn’t mean that the judges themselves should be under democratic control (judges should always be as independent from political bodies as possible) but that there should be a lawmaking body that can pass new legislation related to all aspects of patent law. Even the European Parliament wouldn’t be able to do so. It has to share legislative powers in the EU with the national governments of the Member States, and the geographic scope of the UPLS would go beyond the borders of the EU itself.
Critics of the UPLS also have structural concerns, such as over what would happen if such a relatively autonomous court system exclusively specialized on patents and detached from the general judicial framework had to rule on a case in which a party claims fundamental rights under its country’s constitution.
For the event that the European Court of Justices “gives some green light” for the reform initiative, Benjamin Henrion predicts “huge lobbying.”
JM Cerqueira Esteves says that “According to PT’s INPI, the Norwegian Ind Prop Office is having today & tomorrow a debate on software patents (Except that our INPI uses, of course, the “computer-implemented yada yada” newspeak we’re well acquainted with).” Here is the English version of the page.
The primary role of The Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO) is to support Norwegian industry and promote economic growth. Raising awareness and increasing understanding of industrial property rights is an essential element in enabling companies to secure their investments and develop a competitive edge in the global market.
Florian says that the “EC [is] likely to put EU-wide patent plans on hold due to lack of support from Spain” and he points to this new article. FFII’s president (Benjamin Henrion) adds or quotes: “No country will allow their companies to be discriminated in profit of Central-EU, US and JP big multinationals.”
“The article does not seem to be available online anymore,” he told us.
This article says that European commissioner Michel Barnier (he is the “man whose job is to pass anti-Free(dom) software laws,” as we put it back in December) regretfully needs “to put EU-wide patent plans on hold” and that he is “frustrated at lack of help from Spain”. To quote some more portions: “The creation of the patent has been an economic priority for the EU for ten years, and is a major goal of the Europe 2020 economic growth strategy.”
“It is innovation that distinguishes the leading countries from all others.”
–Miguel Sebastián, Spain’s industry ministerThat’s nonsense. See the presentation from the FFII for gory details about UPLS.
The article says: “Barnier had planned to present the relevant draft legislation on 18 May, in time for a political agreement by industry ministers at a meeting on 25-26 May, the last they will have under the Spanish presidency. But officials said that Barnier was becoming frustrated with Spain’s unwillingness to negotiate on the dossier or to prioritise work on it in the Council.”
Well, Spain should be congratulated. It is doing the right thing here. As we already know: “Sweden brokered a deal on the specifications for an EU-wide patent during its presidency of the Council of Ministers in the second half of 2009.” We wrote about this at the time.
Lastly, Spain’s industry minister Miguel Sebastián is quoted as saying, “It is innovation that distinguishes the leading countries from all others.” As everyone ought to know, patents and innovation are not the same thing and what Barnier is proposing opens the door to software patents in Europe. █
Send this to a friend
Original photo by Matt Buchanan; edited by Techrights
Summary: The patent system receives more mockery and jabs while monopolies like Apple exploit it in order to marginalise competition
PATENTS are not an ethical thing in general, but their original intent was a positive one. The patent system was created to protect the small guy/girl (the “inventor”) from the big companies. That’s at least part of the story. Nowadays, the patent system does exactly the opposite thing by crushing the small guy/girl (unless it’s a patent troll and a parasite) and the funny thing is that public money is being used to fund this injustice.
As TechDirt puts it
Why Does The US Gov’t Get To Patent Research Paid For By Public Tax Dollars?
An anonymous reader links us to a report from The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which came out earlier this year, that highlights how, in 2008, the US government brought in $170 million (pdf) by licensing federally (i.e., taxpayer-funded) technology and patents to private companies.
This is not the exception by the way. Other countries are doing this and in some cases, the entities generated by taxpayers turn into patent aggressors (CSIRO for example [1, 2]). In other cases, publicly-funded research, some of which gets classified as academic, turns into startups with patents which are in turn being used to exclude the public. This practice is commonplace in medicine.
What’s not helping here is: 1) too many patents are being granted too easily; 2) patents are being granted to monopolies; 3) patents are too broad in terms of scope; 4) litigation/application is too expensive for the small guy/girl to be able to afford.
The written description requirement for patents is perhaps about to change, based on this new article.
The court stated, “The ’516 patent discloses no working or even prophetic examples of methods that reduce NF-kB activity, and no completed synthesis of any of the molecules prophesized to be capable of reducing NF-kB activity”
This seems to address issues with patents in general but not with software patents. How about those notorious “over the Internet” patents, which are acquired for just about anything in the analogue world, only when applied as a digital service? How about “on the cloud” patents, which TechDirt considers to be a looming problem?
With so much focus on “cloud computing” these days, companies looking to leap into the cloud and to embrace the agility and flexibility it provides are being warned that there may be a looming problem on the horizon: patent litigation. Seriously. As with pretty much any hot area of technology these days, there’s a pretty big patent thicket around cloud computing — even if the basic technology really isn’t all that different than what’s been around for ages. But, of course, that won’t stop opportunistic companies from claiming their patents cover new cloud services (or of having some players in the field attack competitors with patents).
Here we have a new patent from a company that ‘innovated’ “wireless handset communication system” and sued Apple (because Apple has cash).
In 1999, a company called NetAirus Technologies applied for a patent on a “wireless handset communication system,” and though laughably broad, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted it in 2006. Now, four years later, the company is using it to come after Apple (AAPL). On Friday, NetAirus filed suit against Apple, alleging that the iPhone–as a concept–infringes on its intellectual property.
How a patent so overly board could have made it through the USPTO is beyond me.
Apple is hardly a victim of this system though. Apple is an aggressor against Free software and against software in general now that it attacks Ogg Theora along with Microsoft. We covered the subject in:
One post that received too little attention is this opinion piece which says:
Maxwell’s comments aside, I know that I personally contacted Theora’s handlers (Xiph.org) at multiple points on Friday about the alleged patent issue and did not receive the courtesy of any response from them. If Apple or other patent holder had a similar experience, perhaps they have been contacted and Maxwell just doesn’t know about it (yet).
Frankly I’m not surprised that a patent pool is being assembled against Theora at this time. As a Theora user myself (Firefox 3.6 !!) I’ve seen how good the codec is which makes it a potential threat to the patent holders. Good technology unfortunately always seems to be at risk from those who think that their intellectual property is being infringed upon.
That said, I would hope that one of the various open source patent commons can step up and help out Theora with some defensive patents and/or legal assistance. The great thing about open source is that the code is open, so if someone does come forward and show a patent claim (legitimate or otherwise), there is always an opportunity to code around it.
The patent system and software patents in particular have become a threat to culture. Being passive is not an attractive option here. █
“One of the ways that the EPO has done this is by issuing software patents in defiance of the treaty that set it up.”
Send this to a friend