[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Software Patents
From: |
rjack |
Subject: |
Re: Software Patents |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:13:04 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604) |
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
By their retarded logic (i.e. Windows, apart from material objects on
which it is stored, is merely a blueprint (or anything else
containing design information), §271(f) MUST cover exported copies
(material objects) of blueprints (or anything else containing design
information) since they held that "[i]n sum, a copy of Windows, not
Windows in the abstract, qualifies as a “component” under §271(f)."
Welcome to the enlightened world of U.S. intellectual property law where
our elected representatives sit on their asses and do little but plan
for re-election or should that fail, a lucrative job as a lobbyist after
they leave office.
Meanwhile, software developers can cleanly revolve their
copyright-patent legal disputes by assuming that the object of their
inquiry is either a fucking bird, a plane, Superman or a "software
patent" -- maybe, sorta', kinda' -- depending upon which court you ask.
rjack
- Re: Software Patents, (continued)
Re: Software Patents, Bruce Lewis, 2007/06/20
- Re: Software Patents, Lee Hollaar, 2007/06/19
- Re: Software Patents, Bruce Lewis, 2007/06/20
- Re: Software Patents, rjack, 2007/06/20
- Re: Software Patents, Lee Hollaar, 2007/06/20
- Re: Software Patents, rjack, 2007/06/20
- Re: Software Patents, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/21
- Re: Software Patents,
rjack <=
- Re: Software Patents, Lee Hollaar, 2007/06/21
- Re: Software Patents, dt, 2007/06/21
- Re: Software Patents, Lee Hollaar, 2007/06/21
- Re: Software Patents, rjack, 2007/06/21
- Re: Software Patents, Lee Hollaar, 2007/06/21
Re: Software Patents, dt, 2007/06/20