I think the problem is that the premise "law X can't be harming activity Y, because activity Y still continues" is fundamentally flawed.
This is a bit more obvious if you use the same logic to describe another scenario: "There were a lot of speakeasies in the US between 1920 and 1933, therefore no wine lover could claim that the prohibition laws were broken because it was still possible to get a drink." 2010/9/14 Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com> > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot > <reini...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> > No, but I fail to see how this is relevant to my point: there is a lot >> of >> > software innovation happening in the US, so the software patent law >> cannot >> > be completely broken. >> > > You have a way to twist words around that's quite puzzling, here is the > point that was in the very email you quoted: > > > There is a lot of > > software innovation happening in the US, so the software patent law > cannot > > be completely broken. > > This looks like a pretty reasonable claim, I don't understand why it angers > you so much. > > -- > Cédric > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- Kevin Wright mail / gtalk / msn : kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
