well, there's allways WINE :D

Thanx MDaG for the help.

It still needs a lot of work. I had to do some nasty hacks to get DC++ to work using Wine...

Here's an interesting article I found.

copyrighting a game is all right since this was someone's brainchild and it takes many hours to make , but a software patent is dumb!!! Patenting software would prevent people to train to become computer programmers , web developers , etc etc.

I've noticed many of you use forms like "would be" or "could be" when refering to software patents, you do know that such patents are in use now? :blink: no feence meant, just checking.

yeah and I would think that SONY will have it's mitts on one esp for that graphics engine that is in the PSP 3 right now since it is unlike the previous 2

Not in Europe (yet).

Not in Europe (yet).[/b][/quote]
And if this is true, not in the future either :Brain:

*edit*

I hope :ph34r:

Well I agree that patents for software probably isn't good.

For one, patents last way to long, considering the speed that software and programs change. What, like every year now? At the speed software is upgraded and changed, a "patented" software is really out of date in a year or 2, and if no one can adjust and adapt to the changing world due to them not being able to work on the software due to a patent, progress slows down.

Listen, companies are out for one thing, to make money. Period. If they don't make money they don't survive. They are not out for progress, nor for intellectual expansion, nor for the benefit of mankind. They are out for money.

Profit and progress are not the same thing. Sometimes they go together, many times they don't. Patents are intended to make money, or in actuality, to keep someone else from making money. If you patent a invention, its to keep other people from duplicating it and making money off your invention. Same with software. It doesn't matter that the software will be out of date in a year, its the greed factor.

For instance. Take drugs. Drug companies don't make money on finding cures for diseases and problems, they make money by making drugs that "supress" such things, not cure them. To make money, you need to keep buying their drugs. If they made a cure for cancer, then you'd pay some money for the cure, and never pay money to them again for it. Yet if they made a "temporary" cure that kept cancer away as long as you took the drugs, you'd buy the drugs the rest of your life.