I was going to make this a comment against
Ritesh Raj Sarraf's post about patents and pharmaceuticals but the comment got way too long.
The basic problem is that patents on pharmaceuticals cannot be directly compared to patents on software and the explanation gets a bit involved. It's worse than apples and oranges, it's more like comparing an algorithm to a piece of DNA.
Patented pharmaceuticals must declare the precise chemical formula of the molecule (and a whole lot else besides) before the molecule can be brought to market but the company holding the patent is legally prevented from protecting themselves against slightly different molecules which are blatantly based on the protected molecule. All modification results in a new patentable product, legally separated from the original.
Therefore, the first company to patent a molecule from a new class is instantly joined in the field by other companies who are (obviously) watching the research news channels very carefully. (In their shoes, you would do the same or you go bust.) These companies simply add a flourine ion or change a hydrogen to a hydroxl group or any other number of minor, apparently inconsequential, changes. Changes which, in software, would be deemed a derivative work and would be roughly equivalent to changing a single local variable from a 16bit integer to a 32bit integer in a single function in a single file in the entire codebase. i.e. a trivial bug fix or even a typo.
A molecule with a couple of hundred atoms can have a change affecting one atom and be a completely new patentable item without any risk of the other company being sued for patent infringement, plagiarism, copyright violation (there is no copyright) or any other barrier. It's common to find that molecule foo is joined on the market by a desoxyfoo and a flourofoo etc. with a chlorofoo just around the corner, within months of the class-leader being launched. It can't be compared to software - effectively, every new release gets a new patent which covers the entirety of everything contained in that release, even if 99.999999999% of it is precisely the same as is covered under other several other patents held by extremely litigious competitors.
Modification is simply not prohibited - copying without making any changes whatsoever to the active molecule is prohibited. Changes to the inactive ingredients will be prosecuted - changes to the active ingredient will not. Comparing this with software is likely to drive you insane.
For example, the mere process of packaging an upstream release for a distribution would be patent infringement in pharmaceutical terms - UNLESS you deliberately patch the original source to make an utterly trivial and apparently pointless change. At that point, the upstream completely disown your entire release and you would have to fix every bug yourself - without the original upstream even telling you whether they fixed the same bug themselves, because they aren't ABLE to modify the upstream code without starting a whole new project and they won't tell you why or how they changed things. There is no such thing as an alpha-release of a molecule. Every release is final and no subsequent modification is possible - unless it only affects the inactive ingredients, e.g. by adding a slow release coating. These changes can affect the way that the molecule acts on the test subject / patient but must not change the active ingredient itself in any identifiable way. So the upstream can make a new wrapper (new packaging) but nobody else is allowed to do so until the patent expires. Once the patent expires, every one and their dog is allowed to make identical copies of the active ingredient in their own inactive packaging and these are called generics. Generics still need testing to ensure that the active ingredient truly is the same and that the generic behaves in the same way as the original but this process is cheaper than making a change to the active molecule.
A changed active molecule is an entirely new substance, it gets a new patent and it needs to go through largely the same amount of testing as the patented original but the new company still gets a head start on what the molecule is likely to do and what side-effects (by now noticeable with the class-leader product which is in large scale trials or even on the market) would be harmful to the future usefulness of their new, derivative, molecule. The new company simply jumps onto the bandwagon shouting "I want a piece of that action!" and there is absolutely nothing the original company can do about it, except try to show that their original molecule is better than the new competitors and to try and build a substantial market share before everyone switches to the new derivative. (Prescribers are human and tend therefore to be lazy, so unless there's a reason to change, the class leader will still have substantial share even after several derivatives exist.)
It's an arms race - each company tries to create as many of these potential "me-too" variants as possible in-house, put as many as can be (financially) supported through trials, keep pursuing those which don't have prohibitive side-effects / problems in tests and hope that, at the end, one of their versions will actually turn out to have better effectiveness or fewer side-effects. If not, they just have to market one as "as-effective-and-no-more-harmful-but-CHEAPER-than" the class leader. The majority of "me-too" molecules come under this category - even if the company concerned would try to point to infinitesimal differences in trial data to pretend otherwise. All this with the knowledge that the very hour that the patent expires, a dozen generic manufacturers will flood the market with copies which do not need to recover the massive costs of the original research and are therefore massively cheaper.
How much cheaper? patented molecules may cost 30 for 28 doses on Monday and one generic may cost 3p for 500, another may cost 40p for 10,000 on Tuesday, the day after the patent expiry. Generic houses only need to cover the actual costs of manufacture, not the costs of the original patent etc. and by the time the patent expires, the efforts of the patent holder to generate market share mean that economies of scale become evident. The absolute cheapest isn't necessarily the one who gets the contract either, these things all have expiry dates and all 10,000 have to be sold / supplied from a single location within that date to actually deliver the full savings. So then you get satellite generics who buy in quantities of a few million and pack down into 56 or less so that the total purchased quantity can sit on many shelves instead of just one. It's the same tablet in the end, with the same markings too. All that differs is the marking on the foil and the colour of the cardboard. (Oh and the same foil and colour cardboard can contain tablets with different markings from different manufacturers from one batch to the next, all within the branding of the same repackaging company.)
The original patent-holding company also has an interest in generating their own "me-too" derivatives, sometimes marketed under the name of a company which turns out to be solely owned by the parent of the original company. It can get horribly recursive.
Sometimes, the derivative from the sibling company hits the market before the "true" competitor from a different company - simply because all companies try to have many molecules in development at any one time (because most changed molecules fail in testing) and sometimes they get lucky and come up with two v.similar molecules and have to do something to justify the cost of developing both. That can turn out to be a poisoned chalice rather than two golden geese.
Sometimes, the company fails to get enough variants through testing and the company then gets bought out by a rival - who then gains their research and continues experimenting with other derivative molecules based on the ones already tested and dismissed. The limiting factor is the money.
At this point, I must now declare my cards. I used to be a pharmacist and although I am still entitled to call myself the holder of a Batchelor of Sciences degree in Pharmaceutical Sciences I am most definitely no longer a pharmacist. I therefore defer to my still-registered colleagues in case I've messed up any of the detail here. The above cannot be declared as the opinion of a pharmacist. I am an ex-pharmacist who voluntarily chose to resign his registration to take up full time work as a software developer rather than pay the exorbitant costs of maintaining such registration and all the "proof-of-competency" requirements which such registration requires.
Finally, before you ask, I am very happy to be an ex-pharmacist - my erstwhile colleagues have my ongoing sympathy but no matter how much some of them may beg, they all know that I will not be rejoining them on that side of the dispensary bench if I've got any choice in the matter.
Software is just better. It's all just recycled electrons.
(including English!)
The string freeze of Debian Installer officially ended at 23:59
yesterday (Sept. 20th). Indeed, this was extended a bit to today, with
agreement by Otavio Salvador who I thank for this.
That allowed Zak to "save" Tagalog and also the Welsh and Latvian
translators to polish their work.
We now have to decide about some of these languages: those that failed
to meet the release criteria but were formerly activated in D-I. There
are four such languages: Amharic, Welsh, Estonian and Northern Sami.
Please find below the mail I just sent to debian-i18n and
debian-boot. I promised that this discussion would happen in
public. It will (but it will be short as we can't delay the release of
the installer for ages....and I think that my proposals are
reasonable!)
Mosf of us would be well versed with the Patent system in general. We have patents in every sector - Technology, Agriculture, Pharmacy etc. Most readers in our profession must already be well versed of the Pros/Cons of the Patent system in Software/Technology. Patents in software are more like ammunition. The more you have, the stronger you are. We don't seem much cat fight in Software/Technology because not one organization own all the patents for a product. An IBM ThinkPad might be using a cool track pad feature which might be a patent of Dell. Since the finished product comprises of many patents from different owners in the same industry, it is better to play good with each other. You scratch my back, I scratch yours.
But what about the Pharmaceutical Industry? There, one single patent could comprise the product. I was reading 
On the last weekend my team and I participated in the Mobile App Camp (
If you want to provide a wiki but want to leave the authentication to one or more external identity providers, like an identity federation, Dokuwiki and simpleSAMLphp are a good combination. However, the existing documentation is lagging behind on developments in these software packages (i.e. doesn't work anymore), so here's what worked for me.
Ingredients:
I finally took some days off. Those are most needed, since I spent carnival on call at the hospital (argh!)... So Brenda and I decided to spend those days at 
Food is excellent, so are the people. But there are some inconveniences (as always). Beaches around downtown are not proper for bathing They re fighting a long fight against pollution (and loosing, if you ask me)... Also, Alagoas is a poor state Our guide said alphabetization covers less than 70% of the people
Also, network connection is expensive in hotels. Ours charges