-----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
> So why are they constantly filing junk patents? I think MS would prefer
> a tighter regime to be sure but they're still in favour of general
> purpose patents imo. They'll probably argue that windows constitutes a
> "system"?
They need weapons of terror. it doesn't matter how it's handled in court. It's
for the grease gun (bark versus bite).
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Digits 772-777 of Pi are 999999
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 147 total, 2 running, 145 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkiGWBIACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4gFACfTB8lfcbteGukf0dC0kcpg61w
HyYAn0xLM+GHq46yYQsD+2A7z0MUriOY
=daiv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
