Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Ending software patents: Has the time come?
legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com — Attempting to ride a wave of corporate and judicial disenchantment with aspects of the current patent system, a new project was unveiled Thursday designed to, as its name bluntly indicates, End Software Patents.
cmister- 734 diggs
- digg it
- FreeDeb, on 02/29/2008, -3/+8"In any case, even if End Software Patents’ goals are extreme, they are not far-fetched."
translation? Even though lots of businesses make loads of money from patent-trolling, it's still unfair and the courts may be reasonable and fix this.- CoolWind, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3This is not about patent trolling. It's about software patents. Congress has to fix it.
- cornswalled, on 02/29/2008, -23/+8So these socialists want to REMOVE ANY incentive for companies to innovate.
- joshuagay, on 02/29/2008, -0/+14Never heard anyone say "Bill Gates, what a socialist," before --- but there is a first for everything. But, besides that, the campaign is based on the fact that software patents do not spur innovation, they hinder it. This is based on economic arguments, and the goals of the campaign have been echoed in statements from people like Bill Gates (whom is quoted on the site).
- cornswalled, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5I doubt Gill Gates is really behind this. Patents are one of his great aces against Linux.
- init100, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5That's now. When Microsoft was in the growth phase (around 1993), he made a famous statement about the dangers of software patents.
- myusrnm, on 03/01/2008, -1/+2Gill Gates? It's Bill, cornswalled.
- init100, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5That's now. When Microsoft was in the growth phase (around 1993), he made a famous statement about the dangers of software patents.
- cornswalled, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5I doubt Gill Gates is really behind this. Patents are one of his great aces against Linux.
- xmlblog, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3Gee and here I thought market demand was the incentive to innovate.
- willynilly, on 02/29/2008, -0/+13"So these socialists want to REMOVE ANY incentive for companies to innovate."
What an ignorant remark. ***** patents have removed the incentive (and even the ability) to innovate. Who is now willing to spend years of his life building something or writing something, only to have it rendered worthless by some ***** patent that should never have been issued?
"Business method" patents? WTF? So now you're telling me I can't have my customers click on an item on my Web site to buy it, because Amazon got a patent on that. *****.
Software is already protected by copyright. Period.- vidalsasoon, on 02/29/2008, -1/+0I think the problem is that the patent office doesn't know the difference between a BS patent (mouse clicking) and a truly innovative one.
- HonoredMule, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3Neither do I. Maybe you could provide an example of a NON-BS software patent.
- pyro789x, on 02/29/2008, -2/+2@HonoredMule
How about the same person who was willing to spend years of his life in willynilly's post, but he did it all in hopes of selling it because he thinks it's a great idea and he can really make money off it, then after he's only sold a few dozen copies some large corporation takes the exact same code, modifies a few lines here and there, then with its greater advertising ability and greater ability to more quickly reproduce the product they make millions off his ideas, where the original inventor doesn't break $200.- HonoredMule, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Good thing he's got copyright protection.
But what about my requested example of a non-bs patent? As in something you would submit to the patent office, not a tale of woe.
- HonoredMule, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Good thing he's got copyright protection.
- init100, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5@pyro789x
"then after he's only sold a few dozen copies some large corporation takes the exact same code, modifies a few lines here and there, then with its greater advertising ability and greater ability to more quickly reproduce the product they make millions off his ideas, where the original inventor doesn't break $200."
The company would still be guilty of copyright infringement. Abolishing software patents would enable competitors to write clones of other software, but they wouldn't be able to just take the original and modify it slightly. They would have to write the clone from scratch.- wellyuk, on 02/29/2008, -2/+2...which wouldn't be that much of a task for a cash rich company like Microsoft (for example).
- vidalsasoon, on 02/29/2008, -1/+0I think the problem is that the patent office doesn't know the difference between a BS patent (mouse clicking) and a truly innovative one.
- CoolWind, on 02/29/2008, -0/+9Software patents are a hindrance to progress. Abolishing them will lead to increased innovation.
- pyro789x, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Technically it will not lead to increased innovation, as the concept has already been discovered, and innovation is defined as something new and different. Abolishing them will, however, lead to a greater variety in products that use or incorporate the same technology, without acting as a hindrance to the programmers.
- HonoredMule, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Innovation builds on past innovation...most of which is inaccessible to any particular group of innovators.
- pyro789x, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Technically it will not lead to increased innovation, as the concept has already been discovered, and innovation is defined as something new and different. Abolishing them will, however, lead to a greater variety in products that use or incorporate the same technology, without acting as a hindrance to the programmers.
- Murdats, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4if it wasnt for a sane judge, a company would have won the right to sue because they had patented hyperlinks
think of the internet without links, that is something your precious patent system almost delivered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#Legal_issue ...
- joshuagay, on 02/29/2008, -0/+14Never heard anyone say "Bill Gates, what a socialist," before --- but there is a first for everything. But, besides that, the campaign is based on the fact that software patents do not spur innovation, they hinder it. This is based on economic arguments, and the goals of the campaign have been echoed in statements from people like Bill Gates (whom is quoted on the site).
- quassatio, on 02/29/2008, -1/+15One of the problems with many sectors of the marketplace today (and in fact for more than a century) is that companies often use patent abuse to stifle competition, and thus innovation. If software patents are discontinued, consumers will have more options, and more companies will be able to make money making different and better versions of the same piece of code, which will strengthen the economy and provide more jobs in software development. This will also solve some of the computing marketplace's trust problems; when behemoths hog the pie, the economy and the consumer suffers.
Wow, I'm a lousy socialist, aren't I?
The economy is in the toilet. You want to stimulate it? Provide room for more competition. Yes, make laws to prevent people being total jerks, sure. That's easy when there's the political will. You bitch about all the jobs going to India? Well, if the behemoths didn't dominate the US market, and seek to grow their bottom lines by outsourcing, this wouldn't be so much of a problem.- init100, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2"Wow, I'm a lousy socialist, aren't I?"
Of course you are. Competition is for lousy socialists, while any true capitalist wants a monopoly. /sarcasm.
- init100, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2"Wow, I'm a lousy socialist, aren't I?"
- quassatio, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Digg got rid of my edits.
When I mentioned patent abuse going back a century, I was thinking of non-software sectors of the economy---check out Edwin Black's book "Internal Combustion."
Also, a good example of stifled competition (although they are legion) is Blackboard's attempt to effectively patent the concept of an LMS; I'm not all shook up about them deciding to engage in patent warfare with D2L, although I think it is unfortunate. My worry is that they have Angel in their sights, the CODiE winners who make the best LMS money can buy. (Everyone tells me that Moodle is the best one money can't).
But I'm sure you can all think of plenty of other examples.- Murdats, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1was your example real, you did you just make up some gibberish and acronyms?
- HonoredMule, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I recognized a couple (specifically Moodle and Blackboard) and I believe he's talking about the kind of web-based training services universities use. My university just started using Blackboard, after they bought out the previous vendor, WebCT. WebCT and Blackboard both have insanely exorbitant licensing fees, despite the fact that only a few short years ago, the university had a complete in-house solution that covered all the university's needs, built and maintained by just one man on staff. They switched when he died and no one else wanted to take over, and I'm sure they're still kicking themselves over that one. The TCO on the vendor-supplied solution is inflating at about 20% per year, mostly from licensing costs and inefficient software.
Oh, and LMS = Learning Management System. It only takes 2 seconds to check these things...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moodle- Murdats, on 03/01/2008, -1/+2I dont want to have to spend 15 minutes googling to understand someones contextless acronym ridden example
- BlackAdderIII, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Welcome to comments on technology-related news.
- HonoredMule, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I recognized a couple (specifically Moodle and Blackboard) and I believe he's talking about the kind of web-based training services universities use. My university just started using Blackboard, after they bought out the previous vendor, WebCT. WebCT and Blackboard both have insanely exorbitant licensing fees, despite the fact that only a few short years ago, the university had a complete in-house solution that covered all the university's needs, built and maintained by just one man on staff. They switched when he died and no one else wanted to take over, and I'm sure they're still kicking themselves over that one. The TCO on the vendor-supplied solution is inflating at about 20% per year, mostly from licensing costs and inefficient software.
- Murdats, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1was your example real, you did you just make up some gibberish and acronyms?
- FreeDeb, on 02/29/2008, -7/+8So these socialists want to REMOVE ANY incentive for companies to innovate.
There's a serious disincentive for companies without a huge patent portfolio to innovate now.
The original purpose of patents was to give the patent-holder breathing room to build their product, not offer a lifetime monopoly on a whole swathe of technological innovation. The patent system has been perverted to allow patents on abstract ideas and that's some serious disincentive if you ask me.- Prosequi, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3"The original purpose of patents was to give the patent-holder breathing room to build their product.." that is not correct. Patents do not enable the patent holder to make, use or sell a patented device. Patents enable the patent holder to prevent others from making, using, or selling the patented device. This is a fine distinction, but one that recognizes that if you patent an improvement on a patented device, you will still need to license rights from the earlier patent holder before you can make, use or sell your improved device.
- CoolWind, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2This is a reply.
- deadcrickets, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3So you've proven you have multiple accounts to game Digg against TOS. Buried and reported.
- cmister, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4More detail from Fortune:
http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/02/28/e ...
Still, Klemens expects his group to find much common ground with the more moderate IT industry reformers, as well as with those whose main bugaboo is business-methods patents. “Pretty much every argument we make, top to bottom, applies to business methods as well,” Klemens says. In addition, the group’s supporters hope that the major tech players are coming to conclude that the vast number of software patents they have accumulated is part of the problem. “There are so many rights in so many hands,” says Moglen, of the Software Freedom Law Center, “everybody is at risk all the time.”
In any case, even if End Software Patents’ goals are extreme, they are not far-fetched. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the patentability of software, and at one time the predominant assumption among lawyers was that it could not be, because it amounted to nothing more than mathematical algorithms, which, in turn, were considered nonpatentable “laws of nature.”
That assumption was gradually turned upside down through a series of decisions rendered in the 1990s by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized court that had been set up to handle patent appeals, among other things, in 1984. Those decisions suggested that even if pure software itself was not patentable, software when loaded onto a general-purpose computer created, in effect, a new physical device that could then be patented. Some of the same rulings that opened the door to software patents effectively opened the door to “business method” patents, too.
In the past two years, however, it has become clear to all that the U.S. Supreme Court is extremely unhappy with the patent environment that the Federal Circuit has fostered in the two decades since its creation. In eBay v. MercExchange (May 2006), the Court unanimously junked one longstanding rule of that court, and last term, in KSR International v. Teleflex (April 2007), it unceremoniously dispatched another. (In eBay, the Supreme Court ruled that judges need not always enjoin defendants from infringing, even after a patent-holder has proven its case, and in KSR it made it much easier for judges and patent examiners to invalidate patents due to obviousness.)
For Klemens, however, the most encouraging ruling for his agenda was one that, technically, wasn’t. In LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories (June 2006), the Supreme Court had been asked to review the Federal Circuit’s precedents on patentability – the issue that ultimately also determines whether software patents and business-method patents are permissible. After hearing oral argument, the Court punted, deciding that, for technical reasons, it never should have heard the case in the first place. But three justices dissented, writing that they would have overturned the Federal Circuit and invalidated the patent in question, because it clearly amounted to an attempt to patent a nonpatentable “natural phenomenon,” though the phenomenon had been recast in the patent application as a patentable “process.” For that opinion, see here. Klemens contends that software patents amount to much the same thing.
Though only three justices signed the dissent, it does appear that it, in combination with the Supreme Court’s back-of-the-hand treatment of other key Federal Circuit precedents, has led the patent appeals court to engage in some soul-searching. Just two weeks ago, it announced, without having been spurred to do so by the parties, that it would rehear an important patentability case, In re Bilski. (See generally here.) It even asked the parties to brief whether a key ruling it rendered in 1998, State Street Bank & Trust v. Financial Signature Group – one of the pivotal ones greenlighting software and business-method patents — was correctly decided.
“There are test cases all over the place,” observes Klemens. Plainly, his timing is propitious. - radison2, on 02/29/2008, -0/+8The idea to end patents should be patented
- 3tcp, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1The term "T-- Idea" has been trademarked and you owe the holder $.27 for using it.
- jm4847, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4I'd say yes. The idea in general of "owning" or "stealing" an idea or frivolous information defies common sense.
- jivecjedkin, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Actually my friend who works in the patent office said that it's not necessarily the idea but the "process" that is being patented... whatever that means.
- HonoredMule, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2When the 'process' is software, it means nothing.
- jivecjedkin, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Actually my friend who works in the patent office said that it's not necessarily the idea but the "process" that is being patented... whatever that means.
- xmlblog, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Just to clarify - we're talking about software patents in particular, not patents as a whole. Donald Knuth wrote a very thoughtful essay on this topic quite some time ago: http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt
- pyro789x, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I think the patent system should be reformed in all fields, not just software. What is somebody patented gears and wheels? Pulley systems? Relaying electronic information on a circuit board? Sending electronic information through a wire to communicate with a device in a separate location? We would be in deep *****. The same concept of stupid patents exist in all fields, even biomedical research, whose patents the article claims is "vital to the pharmaceutical industry," even though they wholly destroy a lot of the ability to actually create cures and save lives, as it becomes nearly impossible to create cures without using another company's patent.
- SavageBlackCat, on 02/29/2008, -6/+1Tremendously bad idea.
- manicallday, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1I did a paper in Law school how patents don't account for Moore's law. This are just going to innovate faster as time moves on.
- GoatMonkey2112, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2I hope you wrote it better than that.
- rnlmedia, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Surely the issue is algorithm patents, not software. As far as I am aware, it is only possible to patent an algorithm in the U.S. I think I might patent one for adding numbers, I reckon I could make a bit.
- GoatMonkey2112, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2I'm sure you could make a bit either a 1 or a 0 with your adding algorithm.
- londubh, on 02/29/2008, -1/+6Software should have never been patented in the first place. Software clearly falls under mathematical algorithms which by law cannot be patented. But the human readable code can still be copyrighted. Not only should software patent granting be ended they should all be declared null and void.
Our patent system is broken. It needs much better funding. There are too few patent officers. People don't even have to prove their patent actually works nor do they have to have an actual prototype anymore. Patents officers have no incentive to reject patents. Like many things in our constitution, we should operate the patent system as our founders intended not as a way for companies to be anti-competitive. - GoneGreen, on 02/29/2008, -0/+6Agreed, software patents are *****. They basically are just method patents, and just because you patent a concept doesn't mean that concept can only be used by your company. What if some caveman got a method patent on the wheel, would be all be driving around with oval tires? My (small) company has been sued for a software patent which was total BS, we fought back and won, but it still cost the company 3K in legal fees.
- UberGeek404, on 02/29/2008, -5/+1People who don't have patents are against them. People who have patents are for them. It is mostly a matter of the "have not's" being in a position of using other people's ideas and calling it innovation.
- mtthwmiddleton, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3This would make sense if the "have's" came up w/the ideas in the patents in the first place. Most of the time patents are in the hands of huge companies who bought them off of the "have not's" because the "have not's" needed money. Also, just because you didn't come up w/the initial idea doesn't mean that you can improve on it, or that you are some how less than the person who came up with it. Innovation is building on others ideas to get to a better place, if everyone work individually of everyone else then nothing would ever get done in any field.
- BlackAdderIII, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Let's not get too wrapped up in the idea that the "have-nots" have been given money for their ideas.
One of the many problems with software patents is that if you're a big company with lots of money, you can easily patent the concepts behind someone else's copyright works without paying them anything at all - even though you're not supposed to be able to.
Big companies are demonstrably being given patents despite pre-existing copyright works, and demonstrably being given patents that don't make any technical sense at all.
That's ignoring the obvious conceptual idiocy of software patents.
If only they were seen for what they are in the US, as they are elsewhere.
- BlackAdderIII, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Let's not get too wrapped up in the idea that the "have-nots" have been given money for their ideas.
- mtthwmiddleton, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3This would make sense if the "have's" came up w/the ideas in the patents in the first place. Most of the time patents are in the hands of huge companies who bought them off of the "have not's" because the "have not's" needed money. Also, just because you didn't come up w/the initial idea doesn't mean that you can improve on it, or that you are some how less than the person who came up with it. Innovation is building on others ideas to get to a better place, if everyone work individually of everyone else then nothing would ever get done in any field.
- kmedlin, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2I get the feeling that software patents and supporting monopolies based on patent law for software companies. Look at Blackboard's patent on LMS' that states they invented the idea of a single user having multiple roles in a single system. Everyone who has used a content management system understands this idea was taken from years of content management system development and merely applied to learning management systems which are really just content managements systems used in an learning environment. However, Blackboard's use of this patent has been to drive commercial competition out of the market and stifle innovations that would use this ridiculously basic concept in their system.
- Waterrat, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1 And let's not forget Microsoft...
- waynetheman, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3Yes, it's time. All software patents and copyrights should be done away with. Then we can move on to all patents, and all other forms of IP.
Ending the irrational concept of "intellectual property" would be a huge net benefit for society.- BlackAdderIII, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1OK, although thinking software patents are a broken, illogical system doesn't imply disagreement with copyright, etc.
- ElectricKetchup, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2To all you people who thing we should get rid of "software patents", what makes "software" less patentable than hardware or other physical systems? Normally, when people write patents, they try to make it as broad as possible, so they don't specify that their idea only applies to software systems.
Personally, the main problems I have with most patents is that they need to increase the requirement of "non-obvious", and decrease the length of the patents to a year or two.
Everything is mathematical. - TnTBass, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1The whole problem with patents is they were never designed with a product like software in mind. A patent basically says you cannot do the same thing that someone else already did (and patented). When it comes to software, you can have 1000 different ways of doing the same thing.
Keep in mind, with patents on non software products, you can come up with the same product that has already been patented, but if you do it a unique way, your not causing any patent infringement. Ex. One person can patent a steering wheel, another person can patent a heated steering wheel. Both steer the vehicle. Another person can come along with a new method of heating that steering wheel (perhaps they use heat from the heater core, instead of a element in the steering wheel) and again not be in patent infringement.
Why is it then that coming up with a new method of drawing a window on the screen is any different than coming up with a new method of heating the steering wheel?- pyro789x, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Because even if you use a different method to re-create pacman with entirely different code, to the consumer it's just another game of pacman. The steering weel, heated steering wheel, and steering wheel heater are all different products to the consumer, and it's possible that some may even buy all three. Who is going to buy two games of pacman made by two different companies?
- scamper22, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0You forget that patents expire.
Even if someone did patent the wheel, that patent would only last 20 years, so in the grand scheme of things, it would not have been a big deal. As a matter of fact, the invention of the wheel was probably novel enough and deserved a 20 year patent where caveman bog could get 2% of every wheeled vehicle.
Next up. Your analysis of the 'steering wheel' vs 'heated steering wheel' is a bit flawed. The steering wheel might be patented. But the heating of the steering wheel is another enhancement all together. The patent it would get would not be for a steering wheel but for 'Method to heat a steering wheel' as the 'steering wheel' patent was already granted. Actually this is the very purpose of patents. The steering wheel was patented, and made public so we could all use it.
The another inventor looked at the steering wheel and improved it by thinking of heating.
"Why is it then that coming up with a new method of drawing a window on the screen is any different than coming up with a new method of heating the steering wheel?"
It's not. Go ahead take the MP3 patent. And improve it, and patent that improvement.
- SOS84, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3This patent nonsense is getting ridiculous. By law, the patent office should not be issuing patents for software. The courts need to step up and strike them all down in one swift move. By law, you cannot patent, copyright or trademark a number, mathematical equation or algorithm, and that is what is being done. There is no discussion to be had because the issue is simply absurd.
- duggreen, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1The way I see it, patents only protect the holder from other inventors who are close to understanding the patented product. If I'm the only person who can build a violin that sounds exactly like a Stradivarius, I'll be lucky if I can even teach someone else how to do it in a lifetime, and I certainly won't need a patent to protect my method. If a thing desperately needs a patent to keep it from being duplicated, maybe it's not really such a technological marvel after all.
- shdwsclan, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1So the little guys can keep the big guys in check.
Anyways, there are only so many ways to write a piece of software - Lunarbunny, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I'm still waiting for Namco's loading screen minigame patent to get struck down.
- bincoder, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2The way patents are used is a disaster. The entire software program should be protected but not each and every little function it contains. That is like claiming copyright on words such as 'and' 'or' 'is'. Every little thing is patented now on non-software items, I wish someone could build a cheap and efficient sterling engine for example. But that cannot be done because someone, somewhere owns the rights to any little piece of it. Same with solar power, fusion, and nearly everything else. That is nothing but pure greed and practically eliminates any further development or improvement in a product or idea. If a patent holder can't make a decent profit after 5 years, it's time for 'their' idea to go into public domain.
- Waterrat, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1 Well said.
- solid12345, on 03/01/2008, -1/+1This is the biggest pile of BS I have ever seen.
Fact is paid employees do far better work than hobbyist programmers. I would never dare use tools beyond the set of software made by Adobe for my job. The Gimp, while a fine program for amateur somethingawful.com photo manipuloations, is completely unsuited for real-world business purposes with the lack of a Pantone system or native CMYK support.
Likewise compare "free" gaming mods to professionally made games that cost money.
I also still insist, you are a total hypocrite if you program or make changes to the code of open-source software and then put such experience on your resume to get a paid job. If you really are doing something for free to change the world you wouldn't use it as a means as a stepping stone to get paid with your skillset elsewhere.
Why should companies that spend money to pay their employees, attract investors, keep the lights turned on etc. be forced to open up their code to a bunch of pimply faced high school nerds?- BlackAdderIII, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Wow, almost every single sentence in that comment was a) wrong or b) silly.
That must have taken real effort. Well done.- solid12345, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Debate me on it, hobbyist programming does not mean a better piece of software.
- BlackAdderIII, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Wow, almost every single sentence in that comment was a) wrong or b) silly.
- vincentweber, on 03/01/2008, -1/+0Read the article about the ex-Microsoft (*sigh*) chief software architect who is being the largest patent troll on earth? Then you'd know that even the companies that are contra-patents aren't able to convince the senator. I know now that, how ambitious it may be, software patents are not going to die in at least two years. We're screwed.
- funkywood, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Since the typical lifespan of a software product is way less than a drug or complex engineering project how about a compromise of them lasting 5-10 years? That would be a good start.
While were at it all patents should gradually be reduced in length as all technology (including drug research) advances quicker.
If it was viable then having the length of any patent be proportionate to the time and money spent on R&D would be fairest. - lolo2007, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0
The way patents are used is a disaster. The entire software program should be protected but not each and every little function it contains. That is like claiming copyright on words such as 'and' 'or' 'is'. Every little thing is patented now on non-software items, I wish someone could build a cheap and efficient sterling engine for example. But that cannot be done because someone, somewhere owns the rights to any little piece of it. Same with solar power, fusion, and nearly everything else. That is nothing but pure greed and practically eliminates any further development or improvement in a product or idea. If a patent holder can't make a decent profit after 5 years, it's time for 'their' idea to go into public domain.
http://download.paramegsoft.com/
http://vb.paramegsoft.com/
http://ladies.paramegsoft.com/
http://game.paramegsoft.com/
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by