According to Jan Wildeboer, Dr. Kurt Blind from Fraunhofer says that a software patent "reduces transaction costs".
Wildeboer asks: "In what galaxy does he live?"
This pattern of patent maximisation over at Fraunhofer is at least a consistent one. Fraunhofer is a true proponent of monopolies.
Interestingly enough, the following new interview with Van Quickenborne reveals that they (Belgian government) plan to enable software patents through the back door. "Comment of Hartmut Pilch on the EU Patent video removed by Euractiv," says the Belgian president of the FFII, which was founded by Pilch himself. Are dissenting views about this video being suppressed by deletion? Apparently so. Here is another new video of Van Quickenborne, who talks about the same subject.
9.3M
At a later stage, the president of the FFII pointed out that according to Horns, "Mr Marco Schulze of BIKT had argued that patent law obstructs proper use of copyright." These are some serious misconceptions that even Horns is opposing in his blog. Horns is not a hardliner.
Politicians ought to be educated about the technical matters involved. A lot of them remain gullible enough to rush through anything that lawyers and monopolies they work for are proposing. "Very soon, the progress bar will finally be legal to use in software in the EU," wrote Rui Seabra. The patent is due to expire on October 24th. Why was it patented in the first place? It's just a digital metaphor for something like an hourglass. And why was in patented in Europe, which claims to be against software patents? ⬆
Time will tell is there are investigative journalists out there who will quit parroting Microsoft (e.g. false layoff figures) and relying on LLMs controlled by Microsoft to spew out false "facts" for them
If Microsoft admits that slop is too expensive and is for "entertainment purposes" because it cannot be relied upon, why would anyone other than the pushers and profiteers still insist that slop bears potential?
