Interesting links. I read that some time ago that patents presented a problem because in some cases they were given for things that did'nt really deserved to be patented because of the simplicity of the software invention.

Thanks for into Peter.

>To patent ... if you can afford it and are pretty sure that the revenues will be higher than the costs. In practice that most of the times means ... not patent.
>
>You are a Canadian. I don't know how things are over there. But here in Europe it currently is a VERY HOT ISSUE. Introductory websites:
>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1770806,00.asp
>http://petition.eurolinux.org/index.html
>http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=407
>
>Personally, I think I have some stuff in my shareware product that deserves to be patented. However, the costs are enormous, at least for me. If I were a big company, it would be a no-brainer.
>
>>Anybody here have experience in the patenting department?
>>
>>What is patentable? What is not? I mean in a patentable process is everything patented (the way things work, the look and feel...) or should different patents be applied to different aspects of what needs to be patented?
>>
>>Is it worth it to patent or is this only reserved to the big corporations because they're the only one to have the financial resources to fight for their rights?
>>
>>What are the positive and negative sides to such a process?
>>
>>Thank you for additional feedback on things I could've forgotten.