If Engineeringtalk was a magazine, it would typically be 300-400 pages long

I don't often discuss in this slot what's in the rest of the newsletter, preferring to leave that to speak for itself. I know that many of you read right through the whole publication, judging from the large number of "clickthroughs" that even the items several screen-scrolls down get!

However, I would like to draw attention to some of the excellent technical background articles we receive each week. They always have their own section, and although they're overwhelmed by the number of "product news" items in the newsletter and on the website, we still publish more of these great backgrounders in a month than any "paper engineering magazine" I know.

In fact, if all the news and articles in Engineeringtalk were published in paper format on a monthly basis, the magazine would typically be 300-400 pages long and have more words that the last Harry Potter book (although I doubt the sales or media interest would be quite the same). Of that, up to 50 pages would be extensive technical background articles.

Doohan understood from the outset that a fictional ship's engineer would be taken more seriously if he was at least vaguely Scottish

I've often referred to how disappointing it is that the only "engineers" the public can name are car mechanics on TV soap operas, but let's make an exception. Yes, tributes need to be paid to the fictional Montgomery Scott, Chief Engineer of the USS Enterprise, following the death yesterday of actor James Doohan. "Scotty" may have been representative of the old school ship's engineer, but it seems the character inspired sufficient numbers of students to take up engineering that Doohan was awarded a real-life honorary doctorate from an American engineering school, and that can only be a good thing (I know, don't get me going on the subject of why most honorary academic titles are awarded...).

Although a Canadian, Doohan understood from the outset that a fictional ship's engineer would be taken more seriously if he was at least vaguely Scottish, which is why he adopted the accent and the name. Scotland is perhaps even more famous for its inventors than its engineers (such as Telford and Stevenson), but it did always seem right, somehow. It also seems allowable that every newspaper today should have the right to wheel out the "Beam me up, Scotty" catchphrase which, like "Play it again, Sam", was never actually said on film.

Doohan may have departed, but thanks to the magic of fiction, Scotty will forever be out there somewhere in the shuttlecraft which Captain Picard gave him. I'm sure he's managed to do great things with the old impulse drive.

I have to say I'd be a bit stumped to predict what the CAD system of 2020 or 2030 will be like

I've been writing about CAD software since the days when everything came on a five-and-a-quarter-inch floppy. I remember a press conference in a pub introducing AutoCAD Release 9, the successor to 2.6, at a point when that product had begun to dominate the booming PC-based CAD market. And if you were there, you'd never forget the chaos which followed UK developer PAFEC's decision to respond by giving its own PC-DOGS product away for free.
This was an age where 30Mb hard drives had just begun to appear on PCs, but the DOS operating system couldn't cope with more than 20Mb, so you had to format the drive into two partitions. Nice. CAD was not only the most interesting subject for us engineering journalists to write about, it was everything. The CAD companies took over the UK's design engineering exhibition (DES), pushing the component manufacturers to the periphery, and when the software companies wound down their marketing in the 90s, the show never recovered.
However primitive those early programs were, however, I still doubt that today's solid modelling applications would have surprised us back then. Stunning as some of them are, I suspect they're exactly what we'd have expected to see, 15 to 20 years on. I'm sure there are some old articles I can dig out where some of us had a go at predicting what CAD systems in 2000 or 2010 would be like, and I'm sure they won't be far off the mark - except I'm sure they'd have predicted a stereolithography machine on every desktop by now. Sadly, whilst the technology's here, the market isn't.
But I have to say I'd be a bit stumped to predict what the CAD system of 2020 or 2030 will be like. Where else is there to go? 3D holograms, I guess. Intelligent virtual designers which require just some parameters to come up with optimal or alternative designs? I'll have to organise a pub conference with some readers and discuss it sometime.

The European Parliament yesterday overwhelmingly threw out the proposed so-called "software patent directive"

The European Parliament yesterday overwhelmingly threw out the proposed so-called "software patent directive", a move which could be good or bad news (depending on how you look at it) for any of you whose products involve software, whether it's machinery, control systems or whatever. Whilst it would seem to be a victory for anti-patent campaigners, it's also being claimed as a good thing by the pro-patent lobby, led by many large multinationals. This is mainly because the original bill had been watered-down by so many amendments that it was seen as no more than a "bad compromise".
That may well be true. But whilst it can be argued that this is not a victory for those who oppose patenting ideas rather than inventions, they've more reason to celebrate than the big corporations. And it's always heartwarming when expensive political lobbying and scaremongering fails to create oppressive legislation from which the main winners will be the legal profession.
Despite claims to the contrary by major corporations, it seems to me that they're the only ones who benefit from software patenting. Certainly those rejecting the concept put forward the most cogent arguments. According to TheRegister, campaigner Florian Muller says: "Next time around, let's honestly discuss the pros and cons of pure software patents, and then we can get a great directive that won't die a dishonourable death like this".
Of course, all this just means the situation is unresolved. Despite the questionable legal basis, the European Patent Office has already granted thousands of software patents, most of them almost ridiculously unenforceable (electronic shopping carts, paying by credit card over the net, JPEGs, MP3s, the list goes on). The patent system is no longer just a way of encouraging and protecting invention. It's now a massive industry which mainly deals with incremental "developments", rather than serious inventions, and is unaffordable to individuals (the average cost of a European patent is tens of thousands of Euros).
Sadly, I can't ever see it being overhauled. But at least for now, we haven't taken another step towards a US-style system with its "patent trolls", companies which don't make anything but just go around acquiring patented ideas and then setting their lawyers on unwitting transgressors.
Both sides of the divide:
http://www.patents4innovation.org
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com