Comments on: Bill Gates and other communists
Free Software Foundation president Richard Stallman says Microsoft's chairman is blurring the discussion about software patents.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Apple to buy Quattro Wireless for $275 million
January 4, 2010 8:25 PM PST
- 'Kama Sutra' most pirated ebook of 2009
January 4, 2010 7:20 PM PST
- Forrester: 5 keys for application development in 2010
January 4, 2010 7:10 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
Mr. Gates Microsoft CEO, alias DRAGASACCOCCE di REDMOND, and the SW Monopolist Corporate are the real threat for the SW develop in the world.
Only the Free SW Open Source, free of SW Patent, can grant the future harmonic develop of SW and correctly business competition.
The world people must Know that is time of Open the mind and close the ass.
By from Alien.
http://www.codiceaperto.org/
Yesterday I read a story, originally from Denmark (EU), that might shed a light on how bad Microsoft actually behaves as Monopolist. The story, called ?Microsoft v. Denmark? on GrokLaw.net, told that Microsoft's Bill Gates warned Denmark's minister of science (during a visit of government officials last November) that it would withdraw it's Navision development from Denmark if software patents were to be rejected in the EU.
I read a lot of comments telling that Microsoft is free to decide what to do with it's devisions. Of course this is true. But is 'warning' a minister of a decision that will have a negative impact on his position as minister in an attempt to persuade him to vote in favor of Software Patents legally allowed? Some people just call it lobbying. If such a decision has clear merits, it might actually just be that. It doesn't really show responsible use of your power as a big corporation, but that is quite uncommon in politics anyway. What if Microsoft's 'optional' decision would be without merits? Than, such a 'warning' would stop being a warning and becomes a blackmail treat! So has the decision to remove development from Denmark any merits based on a decision about software patents? Maybe some Microsoft chill will find one eventually. So far Microsoft's own argument appears to be that they need to develop their software in a country that supports software patents to protect their 'Intellectual Property'. Set asside the confusing 'Intellectual Property' term and just call it patents, THEIR CLAIM IS NOT TRUE!
If you, for example, develop a product in the EU and apply for a patent in the US, you are able to defend against any US company that uses whatever you have patented. However you can not defend against a company in the EU. The same goes if you developed the product the US. This is simply because patents have nothing to do with implementing them.
From what I learned about the way Software Patents almost made it in the EU already. It would not surprise me at all if Ireland, amongst others, has received similar 'warnings'. I personally think Microsoft's conduct, trying to work the EU's democratic process, is nothing short of criminal. I actually believe that based on making such treats, I company like Microsoft should be banned from the EU altogether.
But why would I company with much at stake behave so dangerously close to criminal conduct? Is it because making money on a short term for the benefit of stock prices is more important to them then their own survival? Or do they just think they will always get away with breaking the law because suing Microsoft is awfully expensive, after they succeeded in doing so in the US? I don't know. But I do think Microsoft's action shows a lot. It shows that Microsoft must actually be very scared of a situation where software patents are rejected in the EU. Did they realise they are not able to compete honestly with the FOSS business model at all? Maybe even fearing their extinction? Because although Microsoft has developed an almost astronomical arrogance over the years, even they are smart enough to know this kind of 'warnings' can really hurt them in both a political and economical way if they get media attention. And why taking the risk if it's not necessary? It might even open up a complete new set of anti-trust law suites. Are this the telling signs of the extinction of a despotic software monopolist? Only time and anyones personal decisions will tell.
Eventually it probably are Microsoft's own customers who decide if they are are able to behave the way they do. Of course governments should prevent Microsoft from braking the law. But when those governments are being blackmailed at the same time, it will be very difficult to do so.
If you oppose to the way Microsoft behaves, it might prove more important to reconsider using their products, then one might think.
Call me bitter or a cynic to, for I know I have every right to be.
Sincerely,
yellowsnow314159
(for I have seen my share of intimidation by M$ lawyers)
Now, they either silently close up shop in other countries, lay off hundreds or thousands of workers, sell off their property and leave unannounced. Or they explain their position to the country's leaders.
What's the difference? Failing to disclose their plans or thoughts would result in dramatically greater fallout as they damage foreign economies. Alerting the government to their plans at least gives the government a choice in how to react.
Assuming that Microsoft would actully cease operations in foreign countries that do not support software copyrights, I think Microsoft did the right thing.
What would you suggest is a better solution? Forcing them to conduct business in given locations? Eliminating their right to conduct business wherever they want?
I doubt this is the first time an employer in Denmark tried to gain government support by threatening to cut jobs. It's the oldest trick in the book, and one even an inexperienced policymaker can see for what it is.
That's possibly the only ethical way of utilising closed-source software - especially for operating systems. ...and it might keep the dodgier corporations on their toes????????
Now that this have been said, lets go back to the basics. The problem with Software Patent is that programming is a written language made of Math Expression. Can you imagine somebody patenting the basic C and C++ Header File for standard I/O? You would become illegal as soon as you use the expression STDIN and STDOUT. That would be really *** backwards, and DUMB. Nobody could develop anything under those 2 languages for the next 20 years?
Talk about improvement..
Any software developer, systems administrator, or regular user ought to recognize that there are some serious problems in the software world. The two most glaring problems are that Microsoft has almost a complete monopoly on the consumer desktop market and the innumerable amount of security flaws in Windows. Those two facts alone should point to a deep need for change.
Microsoft is a publically traded company. It's reason for existence is profits. Anything that cuts its marketshare or encourages competition is a direct assult on its reason for existence. To fault American corporations for that is far beyond the scope of this topic. But as consumers it is wrong to simply step in line, we must realize what microsoft is advocating and why.
"Intellectual Property" is a complex issue and a bit of a paradox in itself. Property by almost any legal definition has historically been physical. Applying a mix-match of laws written for physical property isn't a well planned route to risk our IT infrastructure (which enables our commercial and security systems). As a software developer, I'm not sure I can readily accept all of GNU's licences. However, I do realize that shareware made profits for many companies and that currently most software profit is from support and enterprise solutions. With those in mind, there is little reason to apply Microsoft's interpretation of the law. The best support should always be available from the developers and multi-million dollar companies are unlikely to pirate software just because it can be done. They'll pay the fees to do it legally.
As a comparison, I'm free to go wherever I want. When I break the law, my government restricts my right of freedom (trows me in jail to put it simple). Does this mean that Microsoft should be restricted in where they do their business? No, I don't think so. What it tells me is that if you behave badly, normal rules and freedoms might not apply to you. I come back to this later.
You're quite right about the dilemma of either to warn or not to warn a government that their decision might result in economical damage. It is also true that if Microsoft should start closing shops unannounced, it would probably result in more short term economical damage than when it is known upfront (I do believe any country will be better of in the long term if it happens). If you, as a company, are forced to move because you can not do business anymore because of some new law, it would be kind of you to inform anyone that will be damaged as a result of that.
However, this doesn't apply to Microsoft. It is because of a very thin and sometimes very subtle line between a 'warning' and a 'threat'. In most cases where someone is blackmailed the distinction is quite clear. It is the difference between 'warning' someone for something that going to happen because you are forced to, or 'threatening' someone because something is going to happen because you choose to. So the difference is in having a choice or not. As much as Microsoft tries to make people believe different, they do not need patent to develop software (you don't need a license to be a programmer). They also do not need patents to prevent anyone from copying their source code. That is what copyright is for. Copyright is not an issue in the EU or any other part of the Northern hemisphere as far as I know.
What patent gives you, by definition, is a monopoly to implement a certain invention. This monopoly is granted by a government (for a limited period of time) so any investment needed to implement your invention are secured. In exchange for this monopoly, the government will create a publication of your invention, so it may inspire others. This is the intended purpose of patents.
However, reality is a little different. Because applying for a patent is very expensive, patents are in fact only accessible to big companies and corporations or people sponsored by any of them. An even bigger problem is that there are more patents being filed for application than the patent systems around the world can handle. This is already true without Computer Implemented Inventions. Anyone who has been in computer technology for the last 20 years, knows that with software the magnitude of possible inventions is far greater than inventions confined to physics. The result of this raise in patent applications is a growing stress on the people who have to scrutinize applications for validity. Already prove has been found that Microsoft (amongst many others) were granted patents that should have never been granted at all. With Microsoft even publicly admitting drastically increasing their patents applications stream, it should make you wonder why. Are they, as a monopoly, trying to gain even more (government sponsored) and artificial monopoly? Are they even trying to break the patent system to gain even more than they should be allowed? In fact, you might consider if a company convicted of abusing its monopoly should ever be allowed to gain an even greater monopoly at all.
I can't really tell you why Microsoft actually needs patents to develop their products. Other companies make software without using patents. That leaves Microsoft with the situation that their necessity for patents is actually a free choice. They might feel forces that way because they don't want to change their business strategy or model. That's the same as I am forced to talk Dutch, because I live in The Netherlands. It still is a result of my free choice to live there. That said, Microsoft has no necessity to leave Denmark when patent are to be rejected in the EU. They still are free to leave Denmark if you ask me. But by 'warning' the Danish government, they crossed the fine line between a warning and a thread. I'm not that naive to thing that threats are uncommon in politics, but I do believe that attempts to work a political decision by blackmailing politicians should be prevented at all costs.
The mayor problem with megacorporations is that they often have more financial power than many small countries. This gives them the opportunity to influence a sovereign country based on their economical impact. No company should ever be allowed to be totally outside of governments control. This is not only an unfair business position but a security threat as well. How could it come this far? Simply because governments failed to anticipate the rapid growth of consumerism in the last few decades. They probably never fully realized that everything would only be fine until the moment megacorporations get real competition. Then they will use all their resources to prevent defeat (however the define defeat). Although it is terribly far fetched and it would destroy the market the still have, there is actually nothing to prevent Microsoft from buying a small country in Africa and avoid prosecution in the US and EU.
Just as I am punished when I break the law, so should Microsoft. That they try to work the EU governments makes me even more convinced that megacorporations like Microsoft should be canned and restricted as soon as possible, before the really turn nasty. For in the world of megacorporations there is no room for a consciousness or sympathy before money.
I still do believe that any normal company should be free to do whatever they want between the borders of the law. Megacorporations like Microsoft, either convicted of criminal behavior or not, are not comparable with normal companies anymore. They are governed by different rules and have different resources to their disposal. Therefore I believe that Microsoft should be restricted in a way that might be unfair to a normal company.
Sincerely,
yellowsnow314159
PS: No offense, but it puzzles my why you mixed up copyright and patent law, when the parent article explains about their difference.
When a business is large and thus part of the "establishment," it becomes easier for it to assure its future profits by using government regulation against its competitors than by competing head-to-head in the marketplace. Large corporations have more to lose than they have to gain by innovations in the marketplace, so they are tempted to avoid innovation and instead use their influence, political connections and money to preserve the status quo through influencing government.
Thus, there is an inherent tendency for a dichotomy to develop between the wealthiest "capitalists" (those with the most capital) and those business owners and entrpreneurs who want a "free market" where they will have an opportunity to compete with the established companies and change the balance of the economy in their own favor. Established business leaders who still favor unfettered competition are acting on principle and not in the way that would most easily protect their companies' revenues.
Thus Warren Buffett and Bill Gates can be very casual about high taxes, because they know that those high taxes suppress new competitiors from accumulating the capital needed to expand and take market share and revenues away from the established companies. They are more than happy to make state and federal governments into partners in their business enterprises by sharing profits, via taxes, in exchange for the governments protecting them against competition by raising the cost of entry into the market, through costly regulations requiring expenditures for environmental protection, employee health care, etc. Big government becomes symbiotic with big business, exercising coercive power that the big businesses could never use on their own, since it would be a clear anti-trust law violation. By having the government do it on their behalf, anti-competitive actions that would be illegal if done by a company or group of companies in collusion, are magically baptized into being so completely legal that they define the law.
I do agree with you that for small businesses to compete, they have to be "innovative".
But open source software and getting rid of software patent simplify reduce the desire, value and protection for innovation. Big businesses can actually get more benefits from open source and removal of software patents, because they can more easily assemble others' innovations with their own marketing power than small businesses.
For small businesses, the only advantage of open source will be that they can produce products faster and cheaper, but their competiting immetations will mushrom faster than they can start selling.
By the way, the problem with communism is not that it is evil but it has not been working at large, so far in the course of human progress. I don't mind to write software for free, since I like programming, as long as I don't have to pay for my housing, foods, medicines, ... But I have to pay more for those every year but the value of the software we are writing is diminishing.
And RMS is the godfather and fundamentalist of this software communism!
There are many variables here. How specialist is the requirement? Are you likely to find other people with the same requirement to team up with? Some people don't want to openly publish details that could let others know to what end their heading.
For non specialist software - such as infrastructure software, web servers, mail, operating systems, word processors, those arguments do not apply. So many people use this kind of software and have so many similar requirements. It is in these kinds of software that Open Source has really shone - and these kinds of software that threaten Microsoft. To its credit, Microsoft seems to be trying to grow its more specialist service ability as IBM had to do when it invented Global Services last decade. It is organisations like these that satisfy the need for highly specialised software.
Microsoft has a duty to make as much profit as possible. It's requirement is not to make life as good as possible for anyoen else, including its customers. We hope that for many companies pleasing the customers is seen as good for business, and competition forces that point. In the computing industry, the cost of moving to the competition is sufficiently large that competition is not having that effect - hence Microsoft's monopoly position in the face of better competition.
Microsoft have determined that in order to continue making as much money as possible it must make life as hard as possible for Open Source. The existing techniques of vendor lockin are not working well enough - so how best can Microsoft spend its money? Lobbying for law changes is one possibility. It's a pity that "Competing on Merit" is no longer seen as good enough.
I see the software patents as highly cynical. Many customers have got the idea that Open Standards are great - but perhaps they don't know why. Open Standards a great because they reduce the cost of change so when you're fed up with your vendor you can move on to another one. They elimintate vendor lockin. This brings in competition and vendors have to compete on merit.
Software Patents allow Microsoft to crow on forever about how "Open" their standards are, while actually removing the ability for others to compete.
Before Software Patents, competitors had to reverse engineer the formats and protocols. Samba and Open Office have performed excellent jobs of this. With patents covering file formats and protocols even a clean reverse engineering effort would become illegal - wiping out competition.
The situation would be terrible for customers. We only need to see how Internet Explorer has stagnated for the last few years to see how lack of competition leads to lack of interest from Microsoft.
With competition effectively outlawed, and user's data locked into Microsoft formats, Microsoft won't even have an incentive to fix bugs. Bring on software rental, and all they need to do is sit back for 20 years and profit.
Its like a democracy.
If the community doesnt like what the person they elected to run the development program is doing, they just say "get lost" and find someone else to run things.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights. Textually, it prevents the U.S. Congress from infringing on six rights. These guarantees were that the Congress would not:
* Establish a state religion or prefer certain religion (the "Establishment Clause");
* Prohibit the free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause");
* Infringe the freedom of speech;
* Infringe the freedom of the press;
* Limit the right to assemble peaceably;
* Software Patents prevent copying ideas not software.
* Copyright prevents people copying software.
On the front page, it says "America Means Civil Liberties, Patriotism Is Protecting Them"
The patenting of processes and general concepts as used in software development is highly problematic, and I'm outright opposed to it, but not only this, but its only a matter time before Mr. Gates sets the presidents so that every new action and technique known to man can become patented and owned by law under a forced monopoly.
Think of the implication in something like the auto industry.
When Ford makes a new car, they could conceivably patent every process for putting the car together and taking it apart, there creating a monopoly on the ability to do any work on the cars, putting every independent mechanic out of business.
Think it won't happen? It will.
When Ford builds a car certain processes are needed to take any part of the car off and put it back on. Break line replacement, engine swap, changing the spark plugs. All they have to do is outline a unique set of steps, which they can engineer into the process through the design of the car, and then patent that process and then require anyone who does any work on their cars to either pay them a licensing fee, or face court.
This would effectively make it illegal to work on your own car.
And guess what, they will call you a Communist with a capital C for doing so.
Many of you people don't seem to understand where this yellow brick road is leading....
Most were informative on the subject at hand of Software Patents, but the ones that were attacking others characters and integrity were the ones that gave me the most laughs.
I will be more careful in my posts in the future as I have found that some of you are rather brutal and lack the ability to ignore obivious flame bait. But I had nothing better to do this morning so what the heck.
Gates though has been working hard to create and then maintain his monopoly and to even extend it beyond the PC desktop market. And for certain areas there is only one OS to really use, gaming being one for example.
So, if anybody was using a "Communsit" model then it would be Microsft.
FOSS (Free and /or Open Source Software) gives you choice over what you can do and what you can use - that's not really communist at all. And, by the way, the goods in communsim wheren't free either, neither could you just take one without paying nor could you add a spoiler to make your car different from the others.
BTW I spent some time in Western Germany before the wall came down and know what communsim is like due to the close proximity of the (former) DDR.
My $.02
"And, by the way, the goods in communsim wheren't free either, neither could you just take one without paying nor could you add a spoiler to make your car different from the others."
Again thats just a control freak government (sounds kinda like totalitarianism). In a truly communistic society the goods would be free. You would be entitled to an even share of resources and goods as everyone else. It would be free or at least you would be paid at regular intervals a sum equal to what everyone else gets and the money would serve the primary purpose of ensuring you dont take more than your share. Theres nothing saying there has to be conformity among people in what they do with their allocation, only uniformity in the allocation of the societies wealth since everyone contributed to its production.
That wouldnt work very well in a large society though so you could also mix in some capitalistic ideas such as rewarding those who work more than the rest with bonus allocations and such. In a communistic society with todays technology only about 2% of the population would need to work to provide necessary food and supplies for everyone so they could be chosen at random for a 2 year term or so with the option to extend their work period when its over. Thought that probably wouldnt be necessary considering many people would volunteer from boredom or seeking the prestige that would come with the assignment.
The rest of the population could work on open source software ;)
Or other forms of art, technology, research and entertainment (whatever their hobby happens to be).
Though a lot of what was in this discussion thread was ad hominem, I found it an interesting read.
Communism, at its root, is that the worker owns the means of production -- in theory, all workers will benefit directly from their work rather than rely on wages. (And, no, there has never been a nation that was truly communist.)
That said, monopolies are anti-free market, but just becasue they are anit-free market does not make them communist. In particular, monopolies are against the ideals of a free market, capitalist, economy -- even while they might remain capitalist to a degree.
People want to expand the idea of the free market to include the free market of IDEAS, but it will fail because an idea does not exist in a material sense and so are not purchaseable. Example: If I come up with an idea for a business, say, dancing at parties, and someone takes that idea and expands on that idea, say, to provide nude dancing at parties -- no harm no foul. The idea cannot be patented, copywrited, nor protected in any way.
I, nor my copy-cat competition, can NAME the business Microsoft Dancing, but can we name it Apple Dancing? (A mistake on Apple's part, if you ask me -- especially since Apple Records already existed.)
Software is unusual in that while it is just ideas strung together in a specialized language, put it in a computer and something appears that exists in that space between real, material goods (like a book) and a semi-real thing like a story. Nothing in copywrite law prevents someone else from taking a character out of the book and constructing a new story surrounding that reconstructed character.
What's my point? It's time to quit using copywrite law, and patent law, altogether. Neither of them are fitted properly for software programs. It's time to develop an entirely new system, designed specifically for software and for the virtual reality within which we now find ourselves.
These new laws will have to accomodate the fact that if I WANT to produce a program that is free for the taking, someone else can't demand payment for my program.
Because the concept was presumably new, I thought about getting a patent. I found that there existed patents for software/ information technologies.
As a company of one, I applied for the patent myself after much study. I am hopeful that I can obtain patent protection. Without any patent protection, any popular website is free to take my concept and use it as they wish, leaving me as a no-cost developer for their company.
I have learned that a patent is often the key to obtaining funding for a small IT company if funding is needed.
Copyright protection only covers the exact code as written, as is the case with any written work. Using the code as a guide to write similar code is entirely within the law.
My questions to you are: what about protecting independent developers like myself? If one comes up with a new concept that proves valuable in the marketplace, why should it be handed to the big companies for free? What would stop a popular website from simply keeping an eye out for exciting new information service concepts and adding then onto their current offerings while leaving the inventors of the concepts in the dust?
One might worry about software patents giving big companies some kind of license to monopolize every method under the sun. However, one should consider two points before this conclusion is taken.
First, we are essentially talking about patenting new ideas concerning the use of information. Ideas are available to anyone. This is truly a case where the little guy can stand toe-to-toe with any big company. Why should we deny the little guy the right to take on the big companies on this uniquely level playing field?
Second, without patent protection, consider whether we would have a rich array of novel services offed by companies of any size, or simply a few popular websites stealing all the new concepts and using them freely.
One might realize that WITHOUT patent protection, we are sure to have monopolies of new ideas in the marketplace. Who suffers then?
The problem is not in patents themselves but in how they are abused.
For the web services system you designed say you used programming language A as part of the patent and is vital to implementing the service.
You get the patent and hurry to take it to market to license it to people and make some money off your brilliant idea.
Company Xylosoft sees it and thinks "Hey great idea.. we should use that but if we have to pay for a license we wont be able to compete as effectively".
So Xylosoft sees that language A is vital to its use. They apply for a patent for specific functions in language A and are approved.
They now sue you.
You have to either pay their licensing to use "their" programming functions and go bankrupt, settle the suit and go bankrupt, or give up your patent to them and start back over from scratch having to think up a whole new idea because Xylosoft now owns your idea.
Seeing the problem with patents now?
All they have to do is patent PART of your idea to profit from your company or run you into the ground.
Its like patenting the phrase "I think". Sure it seems innocent till you stop to think how many books magazines, movies, talk shows, etc would have to pay royalties on it.
Secondly, your arguments, legitimate or not, can easily be defeated.
The first thing to note is that the vast majority of patents recieved in America today are for corporations. The ratio of corporate to individual patents in America has increased dramatcially over teh past 20 years, with corproations now get over 5 times the number of patents as individuals and this number is just going to continue to increase.
Therefore, the more likely scenario is that it would be you trying to develop a wesite that has aleady been patented, not the other way around.
Secondly, patent law as it stands is compeletely absurd for use in software development.
Writing software IS a mattter of developing algorithims and processes. That's all the industry is. Its not like manufacturing, where patents have traditionally been employed, where a lot of the busines is the production of the same goods using a set process. Software development is the production of compeltely unique goods that can readily be duplicated.
This is the fundamental difference.
In manufacturing someone may come up with an idea for a new product or process. That product would then be built on a production line, and hundreds to millions of the same product will be created.
What is being protected here is the ability get a return on investment for tooling up to build and market that product. These products are also much longer lasting in viabilty, so having a 17 year on something like a new sproket design is one issue, but having a 17 year patent on something like a new programming algorithm is absurd, since the utility of the product will almost never outlive the life of the patent, whereas with traditional patents this is not the case.
Likewise, as I said, with manufactoruign the industry is around developing a realtively few prodcuts and then producing them. In the software industry there is no real "production" its all development, so its an industry that ONLY "produces" unique prodcuts.
So a car company may patent a new break design, and then they would manufacture that break millions of times, over a period of 5 to 50 years.
In software development you may create a new product, that has a process that can be patented, but then once you develop that product, you move on to develop a new one. There is no "cost of production" over the initial development, unlike manfacturing development where the initial development is just the first step.
Secondly, because software development is such a fast changing industry, where EVERYONE is working on new things all time, there is a very high likelyhood that your "idea" may be thought of by someone else without ever having seen your idea at all. As software developers, we all spend all day every day putting together unique sets of code, that is the WHOLE JOB.
Now just imagine if software patents had been used from the beginning.
The first person to develop a the loop could have patented looping, and then in order for anyone to write any code for 17 years, they would have to pay a royalty every time they wrote a loop. I think we all know that would have killed software development.
I worked at a company that developed a unique client server reporting system in the very early days of client server PC technology. There was talk of patenting the process, but the CEO didn't understand the issue so it never went forward.
It could have happened, and what a stupid thing it would be. Why should our company have gotten a monopoly on client server reporting just becasue we were an early developer of something that probably anyone else needed to meet the same needs would have thought of also?
Part of a patent is to prove that something is not "obvious". How do we juedge "obvious" in software development? Obvious to who? The general public, or other software developers? As it is currently, the criteria is "obvoius to the general public". Well, in that case nothing about software development is obvious.
As you can see, there are many problems with "intellectual property rights". There is property there. Its an attempt to create property out of thin air, which costs nothing to the holder of the property rights when the property is "stolen". You can't steal something that doesn't exist.
If I develop an idea that is the same as your idea I have not decreased your net worth in any way. If you had $200,000 in the bank and all your posessions were worth another $500,000, then when I, myself, come up with a bit of code that is the same as your bit of code, by coincidence or covergent evolution, I have not decreased the present value of your estate in any way. You still have $200,000 in the bank and all $500,000 of your property.
- !!Boooooooooooooooom!!
- by June 23, 2005 2:25 PM PDT
- !!!This is the posting of god!!!!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 3 pages (225 Comments)I own a lot of patents.
Want to make a deal.