benignslime
> It is written in the Pascal language, a well-stabilized standard language with compatibility promises for decades. Using the FreePascal compiler and the Lazarus IDE for free and easy development. The code is written to be seen as pseudocode. In place of need, comments are written to help.
I can see why people would be frustrated, but you're getting a whole lot for using their service.
What I don't understand is why he doesn't find the data for 2000-2020. Like how can he even begin to claim "its bigger than ever" when the last 20 years of technological advancement seems to be crux of his argument.
If you wanted to read the referenced article. This was the first thing I thought of. I appreciate Fowler's writing style and his sourcing. He always links some interesting stuff.
Turns out the article mentions them.
It's a little difficult to give OP advice on their situation when it's unknown what product or workflow they're in. I've always found that if I'm taking too long testing or debugging, it might be a problem with the projects toolchain. If developers don't put in the time to make their projects testable and debuggable, those man hours will be eaten up over time.
Canada has a weak interpretation of computers. From the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_Canadia...):
> Computers, software, or related terms do not appear anywhere in the Patent Act. Therefore, as with any other invention, to be patentable a computer-using invention must meet the general requirements for patentability of any invention as found in the Act.
> the "Invention" is defined in Section 2 of the Patent Act as:
> "[A]ny new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement in any art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter".[1]
> So, any invention must be new and useful. Inventions must also be non-obvious as provided in section 28.3.[2] Inventions must also fall into one of the five categories of patentable subject matter found in the definition of "invention" above. "
I've personally known people who have secured patents in Canada, and always wondered why they could (was a fairly simple media-manipulation task). The wiki article mentions that Amazon was able to secure a patent for their One Click product, while an oil processing company wasn't able to patent a system that would help measure locations for oil drilling. The court argued the math used to calculate locations, would, if extracted, be something a person could be a "mathematical formulae and a series of purely mental operations", and it "fell within the prohibition in the Patent Act[2] against patents for scientific principles or abstract theorems".
My point is it's all so grey. It seems that if you argue well enough, the court may just decide on that day to confirm the patent. It shouldn't be necessary to be provided examples, at all times, to deduce if a patent is necessary. Software patents go down the road of patenting script. You don't see people going about patenting poetry. Or even design patents on weird ascii art or the like. It's just not the format.