[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Software Patents

From: rjack
Subject: Re: Software Patents
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:00:36 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070604)

Lee Hollaar wrote:

And, by not enacting special legislation regarding patents for software, Congress has said that it should be treated the same as anything else that can receive a utility patent -- same form, same duration. And therefore special legislation is not necessary.

At least we agree Congress has enacted nothing to clarify the mess
caused by the scope conundrum of 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).

You seem to ignore the facts, perhaps because they don't fit with your rant. And you seem to assume that we have a continual need for new laws, even if Congress feels that the old ones are working reasonably well.

Your “facts” concerning Congressional action -- 17 U.S.C. § 117 and 35
USC § 273 – are irrelevant to the matter at hand. Those actions do
nothing to clarify the problem posed by the idea-expression dichotomy
and the proper application of IP law to software.

I have my rants and you have yours:

“The fact is, whenever a company invents a new technology, it’s never
sure whether it’s going to get sued or not,” Hollaar continues. “Well,
that’s life. . .

Well spoken Professor -- and very true. Small business and individuals
are left out of the American dream because they cannot afford the costs
and risks of litigation due to the lack of clarity in IP law. The
vagueness you so cavalierly advocate benefits trial lawyers and those
who can afford them.

Whether anybody listens to you is another matter.

Ahhh. . . promulgated with the true arrogance of the tenured
intelligentsia. Great punch line :)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]