ntagonism to software patents has come from many credible directions, including Nobel Laureates. It's amazing that even programmers are often ignored in this debate because they favour copyrights, which enable them to still code freely, as in free of worries. They don't want patents, based on polls, studies and surveys. Even the EPO has articulated this conundrum and Glyn Moody remarks:
As the EPO says, software does not distinguish "between technical and non-technical processes". The reason it doesn't distinguish is because it is a completely factitious distinction: it doesn't exist. Software is just a bunch of algorithms working on data, outputting data; it doesn't solve "technical" problems, it solve mathematical ones. Software is mathematics.
Needless to say, the 'inventor' du jour believes that any spontaneous idea can be turned into a patent (especially given a skillful patent lawyer), no matter how generic or lacking in value it is. Watch the following new video. At first sight it looks like a joke but it's not. ⬆
IBM basically laid off almost 1,000 people last week [...] At the moment about 75% of the 'articles' we see about IBM (in recent days) are some kind of slop
Very ill-prepared for the deteriorating situation caused by their clients' past behaviour towards many people, including high-profile figures who offered to testify
Last week IBM laid off almost 1,000 people in Confluent and the media didn't write anything about it, so don't expect anyone in what's left of the media to comment on Fedora's demise and silent layoffs at Red Hat
In an age when ~1,000 simultaneous layoffs aren't enough to receive any media coverage, what can we expect remaining publishers to tell us about Microsoft layoffs in 2026?
Is the "era of AI" an era when none of the media will mention over 800 layoffs? [...] There's a lesson here about the state of the contemporary media, not just IBM and bluewashing
