Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> So in that particular case, supporting Microsoft actually benefitted
> Free Software.
And how does the SCOTUS conclusion that
<quote>
A copy of Windows, not Windows in the abstract, qualifies as a
"component" under §271(f)
</quote>
benefits Free Software, dear mini-RMS?
You may not realize it but in that case the SCOTUS affirmed "software
patents" regarding apparatus claims and just exempted sofware-not-
copies ("Windows in the abstract" vs foreign made copies... made
pursuant to the Microsoft's license) from being "components" creating
additional (to domestic market) liability under §271(f) for being
"supplied" form the US. That's exactly what Microsoft was asking for.
regards,
alexander.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
