Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Your Rights Online

Australian Gov't Moves To Block E-commerce Patent 103

Posted by timothy
from the ones-and-zeros dept.
ColaMan writes "Surfacing in the Australian version of GoogleNews, moves are afoot to block a patent covering (it seems) general ecommerce practices on the internet. This comes after the recent strongarm tactics against New Zealand businesses by D.E. Technologies , holder of the patent overseas."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Gov't Moves To Block E-commerce Patent

Comments Filter:
  • Perhaps... (Score:5, Informative)

    by X-wes (629917) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:22AM (#6483060)
    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/17/10580 35125683.html [theage.com.au] The Google link does not appear to work.
    • Damn Google!
      I cut'n'pasted the "And X related stories link...", and when it fell off the front of google, the link is no longer valid.
      However , a news search for ecommerce patent [google.com.au] works just as well.
    • The letter then warns that if D.E. Technologies is forced to litigate and succeeds, it will be entitled to an injunction against the website in question, damages and costs...The last paragraph of the letter adds: "We trust commonsense will prevail and look forward to hearing from you within the above deadline."

      Oh yeah, D.E. Technologies knows all about common sense.
  • by Sapphon (214287) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:28AM (#6483070) Journal
    But I found what I think is the article referred to here [theage.com.au]
  • e-Commerce patents? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by agent dero (680753) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:31AM (#6483077) Homepage
    Can someone explain this to me honestly?

    How is it possible for someone to patent something on a nationality-less object like the Internet?
    How can they even enforce this, with the exception of AU based companies, what will stop my Bank in Zimbabwae from using their "patented" e-Commerce thinga-mawhatsits?

    Or is it just one of those marketing things, like saying "Oxi-Clean is backed by a patented process..." Just so they look good?

    Anyways, go Australia!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:47AM (#6483107)
      How is it possible for someone to patent something on a nationality-less object like the Internet?

      The western, industrialized nations are the biggest ecom players, so it really doesn't matter if some 3rd world nation is using the same patented methods with their software. You have to follow the trail of money on this one. It's a double-edged sword. You can get away with it, but then you can't conduct business in places where the trademark is effective (consequently this is where the biggest market is)
    • by gl4ss (559668)
      Well, sounds like a real good reason to do something about it before au ecommerce really moves to zimbabwe doesn't it? Anyways, using safe havens for server keeping isn't exactly a new idea, but suggested in scifi 30+ years ago(orbit, artificial islands).
    • by AndroidCat (229562) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @05:00AM (#6483136) Homepage
      How can they even enforce this, with the exception of AU based companies, what will stop my Bank in Zimbabwae from using their "patented" e-Commerce thinga-mawhatsits?

      Even worse, read the D.E. Technologies letter and try to imagine anyone doing any kind of business app on the Internet without violating that rubbish patent. "We displays stuff in yer language and currency, you selects stuff, we totals it, you give okay, we run the transaction, Bob's yer uncle!" People shouldn't be allowed to patent a common business transaction just because they added "computer", "internet" and "world-wide web" to the application. They matter as much as wearing clown suits.

      Patent examiners need to be taught to use that big red rejection stamp "Fscking Obvious!" more often.

      • Odd. My letter didn't come from D.E. Technologies, it was from their legal firm: Cats and Associates. It read:

        All your base are now belong to us.

      • too late (Score:3, Insightful)

        by axxackall (579006)
        People shouldn't be allowed to patent a common business transaction just because they added "computer", "internet" and "world-wide web" to the application. They matter as much as wearing clown suits.

        It happened first in the country called USA, who is the leader of the word economy, the country where most of government workers (if not most of citizens in general) lack seriously their education. After it (business method patenting) becomes a common practice in the US Patent Office it's too late to change an

        • Ah good, I'll patent my business methods involving clown suits there first. (Of course, McDicks might try to claim prior art, details!)
      • (* just because they added "computer", "internet" and "world-wide web" to the application *)

        Here is code to automate the generation of stupid
        patents:

        h = openFile("regular_business_behavior.txt");
        while (w = readNextWord(h)) {
        if (random(0.0,1.0) > 0.96) {
        w = w + " using a computer network ";
        }
        print(w);
        }

        (slashdot mangles some of the code, I would note)
      • Surely there's prior art somewhere. I mean, it's not like you'd need to be a genius to think up this process.

    • by GammaTau (636807) <jni@iki.fi> on Sunday July 20, 2003 @05:02AM (#6483146) Homepage Journal

      How is it possible for someone to patent something on a nationality-less object like the Internet?

      That is kind of like asking "how is it possible that the government locks everyone with the letter 'e' in their name to prison?" Stupid things can be done. If a government agency grants a patent to such a method and other governments in the world agree and assist with enforcing it, then it is possible.

      This has, of course, nothing to do with the purpose of the patent system. The purpose of patent system is to make inventors to share their inventions with the general public. In return, the general public grants the inventor an exclusive right to the method for a limited time. However, nowadays the idea of benefit to the general public has been completely lost.

    • by ColaMan (37550) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @05:15AM (#6483164) Homepage Journal
      It's rather simple , you just patent in all the countries that have internet access.

      In this case , D.E. technologies has patented this method in 32 countries so far.

      How the hell this could get past 32 patent offices without getting the great big "Get Fucked" stamp on it is beyond me.

      • by bentcd (690786) <bcd@pvv.org> on Sunday July 20, 2003 @05:26AM (#6483198) Homepage
        How the hell this could get past 32 patent offices without getting the great big "Get Fucked" stamp on it is beyond me.

        We don't know how many they've tried and failed in though, do we? In some countries (*cough* US *cough*), it doesn't take much more than a correctly filled out application to get a patent. It's not whether you can get the patent that matters but whether you can successfully defend it in court.

        (With some luck, the US patent office is serious when it says it will change its evil ways)
      • In Europe, a US based company already has the patent [ffii.org] for this "invention". I hope we can use this situation to convince more politicians of the dangers of software patents.
    • by EvilTwinSkippy (112490) <yoda.etoyoc@com> on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:41AM (#6483545) Homepage Journal
      (Ratzen fratzen... can't post in all caps.)
      hello,

      i am writing you of a wonderful business
      oppertunity in nigeria. my father was gumbo
      aiduiuda creator of the patent for e-commerce.

      i am the rightful heir to the fortune that has
      become him. but being persecuted by the regime of
      douy, cheetum and howe, i cannot move the money
      out of nigeria.

      in exchange for the use your bank account i am
      willing to share 20% of the sum of $3 billion
      dollars.
    • How is it possible for someone to patent something on a nationality-less object like the Internet?

      1. The patent system is fucked
      2. The Internet isn't nationality-less, in the same way that the telephone network isn't.
      3. If you're doing business, you have to obey the laws of the nations that you're doing business in. That means if you're shipping product to a U.S. customer, you have to obey U.S. trade law. This is how the EU is getting U.S. e-commerce sites to collect tax on product sold to E.U. residents.
    • >Can someone explain this to me honestly?
      >

      I don't know anything about this specific patent assertion, but here's a general picture.
      1. Patents are granted in most places based on a mostly-untested *assertion* of uniqueness and invention.
      2. At that point the gov't will give you a big advantage in any later attempts to enforce your "invention". After which anyone you sue must prove either that he's not using your stuff, or that it was never patentable in the first place. In other word
  • by inflex (123318) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:37AM (#6483089) Homepage Journal
    Well, Im a relatively small e-commerce site, doing no more than perhaps $50,000 USD(equivilant) a year. Something like this would simply kill me.

    I do not see how any company is going to come to terms with these high costs - more than likely they'll just adapt around the legals and leave the legal fees falling back on DET.

    I only hope that the person/group/body whom approved the patenting of business-processes didn't envisage things happening like this, more than likely I'm deluded.
    • Don't wouldn't worry too much about this. This patent will get smashed by the big boys.

      I work for a software development arm of 29 billion dollar financial processing business. And I can tell you that there is no way we (and other big fish in the transaction processing business) will take this lying down.

      I wonder how many large businesses they have sent their writ to ? These opportunitists won't get a cent.

      • I'd feel more confident if the whole patent system was reworked such that the test of application was changed in such a way that it read more like:

        "If no one else can figure out how the heck you do it, then you can patent it". Once you've patented it, then people can licence it off you.

        • You are absolutely right. If anything this case shows that the world's patent systems aren't working.

          This ridiculous case just may provide just the impetus that government's need to pull their finger out and do something about it.
    • by okeby235 (99161) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @06:49AM (#6483331)
      What someone needs to do is sue the patent office for damages. It was their negligence in awarding a patent (that had no technical merit) in the first place that costs you money.
  • Patents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rf0 (159958) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:46AM (#6483103) Homepage
    Its good to see a county actually opposing stupid patents. Now if australia would only apply the same sort of logic to its monopoly on telcos.

    Rus
  • by Audent (35893) <audent@@@ilovebiscuits...com> on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:49AM (#6483112) Homepage
    The fight's not over here yet, either. Associate Govt Minister for tech is looking at the issue although it's probably too little too late when you think about it. It's interesting to note that the guy who runs DE Tech wanted to set up shop in NZ and target every other country in the world from some kind of "cyber Switzerland". He got no government support for his idea and now is targeting NZ companies instead. Draw your own conclusions.
    InternetNZ (the old Internet Society of NZ) is helping pay for a legal opinion on the matter also.

    Surely it's about time we all got organised enough to stop this kind of nonsense before it costs someone an eye? Right? Amazon one-click/BT patents internet/etc...

    Extra stories here from NZ Herald and Computerworld NZ - sorry about links, no time to pretty them up.

    Lumbering reaction to software patent claim
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm? storyID =3512663&thesection=technology&thesubsection=comme nt&thesecondsubsection=

    Patent threat to NZ e-tailers
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay. cfm?storyID =3511627&thesection=technology&thesubsection=gener al

    InternetNZ puts up cash for patent opinion
    http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/nl /0E333D06 28EEA685CC256D60000F23F8

    Govt should act to save e-trade
    http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/nl /DDCEA58D 77FA36A0CC256D5F00721106
  • by professorhojo (686761) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @05:10AM (#6483156)
    this is almost as ridiculous as that guy who successfully patented the HYPERLINK.

    which is in turn, easily less rediculous than comnpanies who actually PAID to use the hyperlinks.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 20, 2003 @05:15AM (#6483167)
    zdnet article posted today [zdnet.com.au]

    Plans are afoot in Federal parliament to derail a controversial patent claim that could see Australian businesses charged millions of dollars to conduct international transactions over the Internet.
  • Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by X.25 (255792) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @05:22AM (#6483187)
    In 1998, I've used ShopSite software to run an e-commerce site (which was accepting international orders, calculated shipping costs for DHL/etc, and done many other things). It was a software that was developed before 1998, and as much as I can see DT morons filled for their patent on December 29th, 1997.

    I'm also sure Intershop might be able to give some dates in relation to their software, since I've used Intershop in 1999, and it was also developed before 1998 (probably even before 1997).
    • I used to buy books on the Internet in 1996. I'm quite sure there is plenty of prior art out there to squash this patent.
  • This move doesn't surprise me, but if this goes through, it will certainly mean small businesses like mine will die because many cannot afford the cost. Come on Australia! Rally and fight this patent!
  • Not too suprising (Score:4, Insightful)

    by autopr0n (534291) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @05:35AM (#6483218) Homepage Journal
    That patent is incredibly stupid. It should never have been granted anywhere.

    By the way, I've been wondering about something. In general a patent covers a specific method of doing something. Like, a mouse trap is only covering that specific system, not the concept of catching mice.

    With that MSN IM translation patent, shouldn't it only cover that method translating IMs? So if you were to figure out another way to do it, you'd be in the clear? Or with the one-click patent, does that patent cover "A method of buying stuff on the internet (with one click)" or is it "A method of buying stuff with one click (and here's some software to do it)"? If you implemented one-click shopping via some other method, wouldn't you be in the clear?
    • Yeah many of these patents just describe the end results, imagine patenting "moving fast from place a to b", wait till somebody makes faster trains/planes/whatever and sue them. And yet some seem to think this is a worthy business plan in software..
    • Re:Not too suprising (Score:4, Informative)

      by rollingcalf (605357) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @06:28AM (#6483309)
      > With that MSN IM translation patent, shouldn't it only cover that method translating IMs? So if you were to figure out another way to do it, you'd be in the clear? Or with the one-click patent, does that patent cover "A method of buying stuff on the internet (with one click)" or is it "A method of buying stuff with one click (and here's some software to do it)"? If you implemented one-click shopping via some other method, wouldn't you be in the clear?

      I believe that is how it is supposed to work. And indeed when many patent infringement cases have actually gone to court, either the patent got thrown out altogether, or the defendant was found not to be infringing because there were differences in the details of their method, like the British Telecom hyperlink patent case.

      The two major reasons why patent holders can get away with suing anybody who does something remotely similar are: (1) Technically ignorant juries. There is no way eBay would have lost the case [msnbc.com] if the jury was technically competent and had common sense. (2) The lack of funds to fight it out in court. Even if the patent would get thrown out after a court challenge, many small companies cannot afford the cost of litigation so they cave in and pay up the license fee.

      Rather than promoting innovation, software and business patents have become nothing more than a legalized form of extortion.
  • by Krapangor (533950) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @06:10AM (#6483272) Homepage
    It seems to me that the Aussies are motivated by questionable reasons.
    How many Australian companies hold E-commerce patents ?
    Well, this answer is: none.
    So, while e-commerce patents are indeed questionable by nature the Austrilian goverment is lead by very different reasons to void them: They want to give their own Aussie based companies a commercial advantage over US competitors. Australian companies won't have to invest money into the development of innovative, high-tech business model and are protect from paying any patent fees by Australian law. Thus they gain a huge advantage by cutting their e-commerce cost by 20 percent.

    I think the Bush goverment should finally remember their responsibilities and instead of providing their business buddies with cheap Iraqi oil, they should make pressure on the Australian goverment to take down these laws which are btw contradicting the WIPO agreement Australia signed itself, too. It's the duty of a goverment to act for the benefit of all citizens and not just their own supporters and conservative think-tank pals.

    • *grin* I wish I had some mod points so I could mod your post as funny.

      Australian companies won't have to invest money into the development of innovative, high-tech business model and are protect from paying any patent fees by Australian law. Thus they gain a huge advantage by cutting their e-commerce cost by 20 percent.

      I think the argument is because of the *obviousness* of this. Mail order companies have operated for years (hell, back in the 80's they were all the rage for consoles and games) and the
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 20, 2003 @06:33AM (#6483316)
      Not to state the obvious, but as an Australian living in Australia, I don't give a crap about how US companies might lose money over a pathetic patent that is almost certainly a huge ambit claim.

      I've seen US protectionism in IT year after year, and the entire world is locked into US-led companies such as Microsoft. Just last week, an Australian state wrote to reassure a software 'choice' thinktank (headed, of course, by Microsoft) that we wouldn't look at open source, but would lap up their software, pay through the nose for it and wag our tails like good doggies.

      You'll have to forgive some of us who may not believe that the interests of the US are somehow magically the interests of the rest of the planet. Certainly the US feels no compunction to act honorably on any other agreements we may sign with them.

      Think being a US ally gives us any advantages? Well, we're entering another round of 'free trade' negotiations (really, trying to get the US government to be a little less blatantly protectionist in regards to their agricultural and livestock industries) so we'll have to wait and see. I have a hard time seeing any favour we gain, over and above nations such as China (with their appalling human rights record, but their massive potential market).

      We certainly don't get cheap oil, or if we do, the consumers never see any benefits (maybe the foreign owned oil companies get those benefits, flowing the profits back to England and the US). Our prices at the pump are higher than the US (allowing for exchange rates), so I'd have to say that you're wrong on that too.

      Lastly, if the Australian government is looking out for Australian interests, that's actually a good thing. I know that the US gov't does the same thing for US interests, at the expense of any other nation.

      If it comes down to screwing a US company over, then I say it's about time. I'm sick of seeing our business fail because of US gov't money propping up business that can't really compete on the level playing field that the US promotes but never actually attempts; I'm sick of seeing our gov't do every single blasted thing the US asks without question; I'm sick of seeing US interests driving our IT departments across this nation.

      Apart from that tirade though, this is a horrible thing to patent, and makes a mockery of the entire patent system. Last year, someone managed to patent the wheel as a joke. This is a bit more complex, but is almost as foolish.
      • You'll have to forgive some of us who may not believe that the interests of the US are somehow magically the interests of the rest of the planet. Certainly the US feels no compunction to act honorably on any other agreements we may sign with them.

        Hey! There is some insight on Slashdot! Someone mod it up quickly before it gets lost.

      • Last year, someone managed to patent the wheel as a joke.

        Ford has just signed a licensing agreement, as has Goodyear [actually, a product-wide exclusive! How's that for thinking outside the box?].

        Cannondale and Huffy, on the other hand, have decided to make things hard on themselves, and indeed it is going to be hard on them.

        One might think the same about Piper Aircraft, but actually their legal adviser just laughed and commented that Piper gets sued out of existance every ten years anyhow, and they

      • by goon (2774)
        We certainly don't get cheap oil, or if we do, the consumers never see any benefits (maybe the foreign owned oil companies get those benefits, flowing the profits back to England and the US).

        Try a whopping 50% tax on petrol imposed by the au government. That is why I laugh when users grump about high pertol prices at the pump and cry unfair trading by oil companies. Rid the government tax and halve the cost of pertol.
        • found some hard figures for those interested ... ... Well roughly at the moment the wholesale price of a litre of diesel is around 90 cents per litre of which you'd pay 39.5 cents in tax, in excise, and then there's the GST on top of that," he said. ...

          [Fuel costs bring high political price]
          Reporter: Peter Lewis, ABC LandLine - First Published: 25/02/01 [abc.net.au] - read down to the Pricing diesel subtopic.
      • You'll have to forgive some of us who may not believe that the interests of the US are somehow magically the interests of the rest of the planet. Certainly the US feels no compunction to act honorably on any other agreements we may sign with them.

        For example, we used to sell a lot of wheat to Iraq. Unsubsidised wheat that is. We supplied logistical vessels plus our SAS for the war in Iraq, and as a reward we will lose our Iraq wheat contracts to subsidised US wheat farmers.Yeah, the US is really looking o
      • Right on. You tell those seppos!!!!! Go Oz!!
    • "It's the duty of a goverment to act for the benefit of all citizens"

      By this I presume you mean all its own citizens, in which case that's precisely what the Australian government it trying to do for its citizens, instead of bowing yet again to our big friendly(!) U.S. dictatorship (oops, sorry) ally whose sole objective is to exploit everybody else for its own benefit - guess the high I.Q. overlooked that!

      This is about the first time of late I've agreed with something the Howard govt. has done. How long
      • >>It's the duty of a goverment to act for the benefit of all citizens

        >By this I presume you mean all its own citizens


        Um, excuse me, but...

        Isn't it the duty of government to act in the best interest of its own corporations? Which is exactly what the US Government is doing.
        • And so it the Australian one, so your point is...?

          I simply used the term "citizens" because the original poster used it, you could equally use corporations, businesses, entities or any other term of choice. The point I was making is that the Australian government is correctly (for once) acting for the benefit of those to whom it is directly accountable and not for the foreign power, in this case the U.S. from where the questionable patent appears to originate.

          The original poster seemed to take exception
    • So, while e-commerce patents are indeed questionable by nature the Austrilian goverment is lead by very different reasons to void them: They want to give their own Aussie based companies a commercial advantage over US competitors. Australian companies won't have to invest money into the development of innovative, high-tech business model and are protect from paying any patent fees by Australian law. Thus they gain a huge advantage by cutting their e-commerce cost by 20 percent.

      Well, as it's only one pate

    • As a self proclaimed Mensa member, you should've given this a little more thought...

      Maybe, just maybe, no Australian companies hold e-commerce patents because our patent office throws them out on a regular basis simply because the majority of e-commerce patents are dumb?
  • The standard way of patenting in recent years has been to take [insert any ancient or commonplace activity here] and do it "on the Internet!"

    Now these guys have created a revolutionary method for patenting! Just take [insert any ancient or commonplace activity here] and do it "internationally!"
    • The standard way of patenting in recent years has been to take [insert any ancient or commonplace activity here] and do it "on the Internet!"

      Now these guys have created a revolutionary method for patenting! Just take [insert any ancient or commonplace activity here] and do it "internationally!"

      You should patent that method of generating patents.


  • Thank god patents are only 20 years, so the damage is minimized compared to, say, a 70 year patent ;).

    I know you can get a patent on business methods in the United States, but I thought that most other places they had stricter rules? A case in point is that in Canada, they rejected the idea of patenting living things (i.e. the Harvard Mouse) that was allowed in USA.
    • As a descendant of Ghenghis Khan, I request my fees for Business Patent 02, which covers invading a country and stealing everything they have. I have calculated that the US Government owes me in excess of $100 billion and I strongly advise them to settle as soon as possible or court fees will also be pending.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The patent number is 6,460,020, and the full details are at the USPTO here [uspto.gov].

    I can't believe this patent is going to stand up if it gets tested in court. There has to be prior art out there somewhere, aside from that it should fail the on the "nonobvious" criterion...

    • Worthy of a patent (Score:2, Insightful)

      by PingPongBoy (303994)
      The technology sounds formidable. Here's the abstract of the patent from [uspto.gov]
      uspto.gov.

      An international transaction system for operation over the internet/intranet provides a pre-transactional calculation of all charges involved in any international transaction. Upon the option of the customer, the goods can be viewed on catalogue sheets translated to a language of the customer's choice, and the price provided in a currency selected by the customer. The customer also has the option of initiating the order wi
  • A method of determining your origins [reverse dns, whois], appropriately converting the prices [many online databases have this info] and figuring out shipping and handling [fedex.com].

    Whoa seems like there is prior art.

    Plus a $10K signing fee + 1.15% royalty + $0.11 per document generated. You have to be fucking kiding. I mean if you have say 100,000 page views a year that's like a billion dollars!

    Anyways, I hope DET explodes and the CEO dies in a horribly messy car fire.

    Tom
  • Sounds a lot like (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hender_Hole (675026) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @09:45AM (#6483745)

    Maybe those in Chicago remember divine [zdnet.com.au].

    They tried the same exact tactic last year using their broadly defined shopping cart patent. Let's hope this action ends the same way, divine was out of business 4 months later. (But succeeded in licensing the right to use a shopping cart for $25,000 to a couple dozen small companies before they went under)

    My guess is this DE Technologies will soon be bankrupt, so I'd just ignore any of their demands. As with divine, I think the only company that's dumb enough to try something like this is one that is already going under and so has nothing to lose. These companies know their patents are bullshit and will never stand up in court, that's why their licensing fees are always in the $10k to $25k range, just low enough so that it's cheaper for the mom and pop shops they abuse to pay the license rather than hire a lawyer. Their worst nightware would be to end up in court, I don't think a company would even have to actually hire a lawyer to make them go away, just tell them you're not paying the license and will see them in court, they'll back off just out of fear of going to court and seeing their whole ponzi scheme fall apart.

  • What we can do (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rufey (683902)
    Besides discussing the patent issues on /. (there have been a few of these lately), those who are in the US should write Congress, if for nothing else to elevate its awareness, at least in the United States.

    I can't wait for someone like Amazon to be served notice over this patent. Hopefully it will be squashed like a little pest that it is.

    I mean, what's next? A patent on discussion boards such as /.?

  • by ratfynk (456467) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @03:51PM (#6485972) Journal
    Only in America can a company be formed purely with a business plan based on litigation. The pantent act has become a business lawyers dream come true. Sco's Unix business model is obviously now in the same catagory. Good for you Australia!
    Too bad Canada, Americas largest trading partner, hasn't got the balls to stand up and say enough of this bullsquat. I am afraid that the country I love has become another spineless, leave sleaping dogs lie, puppet. The future of commerce and innovation is in jeopardy if we alow this rediculous sherade to continue.

I've never been canoeing before, but I imagine there must be just a few simple heuristics you have to remember... Yes, don't fall out, and don't hit rocks.

Working...