> On 5/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not exactly. I am not judging whether it is "right" to be able
>> to patent ROMs. Specifically with their content. Rather I am
>> trying to follow the logic of hardware versus software. As I
>> understand the original patent process,
The Supreme Courts is "making play" out of an issue where people think
they can always get something for nothing.
And, while they "make play", they're just wasting the hard working
folks.
I don't understand what you mean here. Might you elaborate?
Best regards,
Marbux
On 5/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not exactly. I am not judging whether it is "right" to be able
to patent ROMs. Specifically with their content. Rather I am
trying to follow the logic of hardware versus software. As I
understand the original patent process, and what Ma
Alas, the operation was not successful. In fact the good
electronics board flatlines when connected to my mech.
It doesn't even show up in the BIOS. But when I put that
electronics board back on the original mech, it does show
up in the BIOS.
This makes me think my theory was wrong. It is not a
Since you've guys got this thread going, I've got something to add.
I cracked my case open on my server that has 2 Western Digital 120GB
hard drives and my new (SATA) 300GB Seagate, with an old 20GB Western
Digital.
Well, immediately noticed the interior was extremely hot, so grabbing a
digital t
On 5/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It doesn't seem as clear-cut to me. An arrangement of transistors
is patentable. A ROM is a complex arrangement of transistors.
By implication you can patent the pattern stored in the ROM.
(I'm not referring to a PROM. But a ROM, where t
> Alan wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Oops! My bad. It's not an IBM. Its a WD2500 Cavaliar.
>>> WD2500JB-00EVA0 dated 16 Dec 2003.
>>> Anybody have one of those I can trade?
>>> --
>>
>> I might actually. Let me check tonight and get back to you.
>>
>> -ajb
>
>
> I actually have two of t
Alan wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops! My bad. It's not an IBM. Its a WD2500 Cavaliar.
WD2500JB-00EVA0 dated 16 Dec 2003.
Anybody have one of those I can trade?
--
I might actually. Let me check tonight and get back to you.
-ajb
I actually have two of them:
sprocket:~# cat /proc/ide
On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 11:45 -1000, marbux wrote:
> On 5/18/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You may have to install the w32codecs, which have questionable legality,
> > but definitely work.
>
> The exciting thing in this area is that the U.S. Supreme Court
> recently hinted that it may find
> On 5/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't seem as clear-cut to me. An arrangement of transistors
>> is patentable. A ROM is a complex arrangement of transistors.
>> By implication you can patent the pattern stored in the ROM.
>> (I'm not referring to a PROM. But
On 5/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It doesn't seem as clear-cut to me. An arrangement of transistors
is patentable. A ROM is a complex arrangement of transistors.
By implication you can patent the pattern stored in the ROM.
(I'm not referring to a PROM. But a ROM, where
11 matches
Mail list logo