Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Now, if someone had designed a chip that infringed the patents > > then the registered patents would be enforceable. This is the real > > reason for using "an apparatus" in the claims. In countries that > > don't allow software and mathematical patents, "an apparatus" can > > only mean hardware, and cannot be enforced against a software > > implementation. > > > Don't worry about that because they may sue you nonetheless and the > lawsuit will then bankrupt you anyway. You remind me of the guy on > whose tombstone is written "Run over by a truck at a zebra crossing. > His last words were 'But I have priority here!'" > Judgements, in England, are not automatically granted to the person who can write the biggest cheque. A claim that "that software violates my patent" wouldn't even make it to court. If, by some miracle, it did make it to court then it'd most likely get thrown out within the first five minutes.
Under English law, the loser has to pay all reasonable legal costs incurred by the winner, which helps to avoid nuisance cases from being filed in the first place. Your views are biased upon the ridiculous legal system used in the US courts, where favourable judgements are only awarded to those who can afford them. You can't buy judgements in England. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've been over this before. Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree before some Muppet decides to step in and embarrass himself with another $0.02 donation. -- _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ K e v i n W a l s h _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
