On Jun 21, 9:13 am, rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > By their retarded logic (i.e. Windows, apart from material objects on
> > which it is stored, is merely a blueprint (or anything else
> > containing design information), ยง271(f) MUST cover exported copies
> > (mat
On Jun 17, 11:32 am, rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> During the current era, the cultural future is going to be heavily
> influenced by the debate over the protection (or lack thereof) for
> intellectual property concerning digital matters.
>
> It is instructive to review the legal history of th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Patenting of Software is no longer up for discussion, it arrived in 1995.
>
Actually, much much earlier than that. The most famous "software
patent", RSA patent, was granted in 1983.
It is quite disturbing to read that so many people were unhappy about
the fact that RSA
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> Of course, a device that peforms a particular function, like a
> vocorder, can be patented even if it uses a DSP chip and software. You
> patent the complete device, not its components.
That's a clever suggestion :) Patent a complete device e.g. cell phone,
HDTV...Boein
There is no such animal as "software patent"...
There are patents for processes, or method patents, in various
technical fields (business method patents are really a separate issue),
and today many processes can be controlled by some type of
microprocessor running some software code...
(BTW, the v
