Re: Software Patents

[dt]

On Jun 21, 9:13 am, rjack <rjack@com> wrote:
> 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

Oh, no, my friend...

This is certainly not a job for elected representatives, aside from
general policy issues...

Just look at what is happening now in US Congress with the so-called
patent "reform"...
When people don't understand what they are doing the consequences can
be horrible for the country... in the long term, of course.

Sen. Kennedy recently made a comment on the current situation:
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2007/06/18/daily9.html