Re: Software Patents

[rjack]

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