-----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..."
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: sheep outnumber people in NZ
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 149 total, 1 running, 148 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkiGRdcACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6q7QCfR03yUSfsvtcg+DpYOnnCtgM6
cR0An0guA4Ee7q01yv8JtUdJtQDxAW6k
=U4l2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
