Canadian patent holder claims global e-commerce rights

This article includes:
DE's Critics, like Russell McOrmond, an Ottawa-based Internet consultant who has taken up New Zealand's cause, say DE's claim is illegitimate, and that rather than providing technology, the company is spending all its time and energy on patenting and suing.

"They're not providing a service or a product," he said. "All they did was take a way of doing business and claim it as a monopoly."

See also: A Review of Software Patent Issues, More patent nonsense -- Canadian, eh! which links to the earlier The Gazette article among others, and SlashDot: Australian Gov't Moves To Block E-commerce Patent.

I sent the following note about a minor error:

McOrmond, meanwhile, said patent offices should be leery of software patents as the purpose of patents is to spur innovation and the success of the Internet and e-commerce has to date been largely the result of freeware and shareware.
Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) is extremely different than freeware and shareware. FLOSS is a matter of freedom and global collaboration, not price. Think free markets or free speech, not free beer. Freeware and shareware are a matter of price and distribution -- freeware is non-FLOSS software distributed without a royalty fee, while shareware is freely distributable software where users are expected to pay a royalty fee for use.

I believe freeware and shareware had only a minor roll on the growth of the Internet. On the other hand, FLOSS is co-dependent with the Internet.