Now having re-read the proper patent. I still don't see how they could
be awarded a patent on what appears to be nothing more that converting a
data structure defined in one file to a serial stream in another file.
Sounds like storing a record in a database to me. :-\ I think Borland
was doing this back in the early 90s in BP7, storing object instances on
a data stream. I'll have to check on that. But it seems so overly
simple. Like someone getting a patent on how you dump cerial into a
bowl in the morning changing its format and then back into the box when
you change your mind. You've done it thousands of times and now someone
comes along and gets a patent on it. Wouldn't this procedure be
considered in the public domain?
Alex Janssen
Sander Vesik wrote:
So please englighten us, what about the patent is all that old?
you seemto be seeing just soe fragments and not teh whole - recognising
well-known
tree species but not that you have wondered up to a forest you havne't seen
before
;-)
Its not that teh patent is something incredibly novel or innovative or that
parts of
it (or possibly all) probably won't be upheld in court or that there definitely
won't be prior art - its just that it is not (as far as software patents go in
this
regard) somehow entirely bogus or preposterous or would cover all (or even a
fraction of) computer-computer communication as people have been claiming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
