-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Phil Da Lick! on Tuesday 22 July 2008 21:18 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> ____/ Phil Da Lick! on Tuesday 22 July 2008 20:01 : \____
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> ____/ Phil Da Lick! on Tuesday 22 July 2008 19:27 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>> | Interferences has now supplied an answer to that question: A general
>>>>>> | purpose computer is not a particular machine, and thus innovative
>>>>>> | software processes are unpatentable if they are tied only to a general
>>>>>> | purpose computer.
>>>>> I'd have to see how this goes but this may actually be the middle ground
>>>>> we're after. I have no problem with software as part of a particular
>>>>> system i.e. an algorithmic control system as part of a device such as a
>>>>> braking system for a car, but general purpose software on general
>>>>> purpose computer machinery, say new UI elements or data structures
>>>>> should not be patentable.
>>>> Microsoft too holds this opinion. It's on record. It said this in court.
>>>> "There needs to be a device..."
>>
>> Here's a URL: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/02/microsoft_v_att_2.html
>
>
> Ah they were in defense.
The shoe was on the other foot kicking.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
"I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the
public good."
--Adam Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkiGwjQACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4RYACgo1Qc/09eDcw6tx69bi8gtrob
x4IAn1QQdhHMLtbnIbArOhPVYGqga5+0
=szDU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
