They haven't watched US history to know that such patents are simply bad. Software is not a machine, and there are simply too many ways to create the same functionality.

Now, if software patents meant that we couldn't use the same coding technique, I'd buy into it, but with patents you are supposed to be able to create "improvement patents" that show that a newer technique may in fact make an older patent even better. But with software, these are being based on "business process," not the techniques actually used in building the "machine." Clearly, if you build a tool in C, and I write it in Java (without seeing your C code), they should never infringe, but with so-called process patents, just the fact that I'm doing something similar makes it a violation.

It's as if a can maker could own the patent to putting ANYTHING into ANY type of can. Patents on such inventions were never allowed to be that broad, but instead you had lids that popped, lids that pushed in, lids with precut holes covered by a metallic tape, cans in which the entire top pops off versus just a small hold for drinking, and cans that need to be opened with a can opener. All of these had different patents.

We're not allowed this with software-based process patents. That's a fraud since it confuses one implementation with an entire category of implementations. Since software can implement the same functionality in untold numbers of combinations, it proves that patents don't make sense.

They are much close to copyright items in that each expression, so long as created without copying the other's, it free expression. In fact, these patents in software are clearly violating the U.S. freedom of expression law because it says I cannot say something that I've written completely with my own mind without paying another for that right.

Too bad they are following our ignorance. Maybe they'll attack Syria or Iran so they can be more like U.S. ;)