[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Software Patents

From: Lee Hollaar
Subject: Re: Software Patents
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:17:58 -0600 (MDT)

In article <> rjack <rjack@com> 
>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.

So, besides whine in a newsgroup (using a pseudonym), what have you done
to help the situation?

Have you made any concrete proposal, and brought it to the attention
of the chairs of the appropriate Congressional committees?

Have you filed amicus briefs so that courts are aware of the problem
and the solution?

Have you written opinion pieces in publications that are likely to
be read by people who can make the changes you suggest?

In fact, what is your suggestion, and why would it make things better?

reply via email to

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