In a recent note, Gilbert Saint-Flour said:
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:46:22 -0400
On Saturday 17 June 2006 19:11, Ron and Jenny Hawkins wrote:
1) Pre-allocate the receiving file as RECFM=U;
2) FTP it;
3) then read it as RECFM=VBS.
Do that pretty often as well.
I'm not
I don't think we need to revert to King's or Pope's patronage!
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Patent #6886160
Jay Maynard
In a message dated 6/23/2006 1:24:52 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
don't think we need to revert to King's or Pope's patronage!
I actually got this for a gift several years back. I thought it was an OK
read for a dreary day.
Jay Maynard wrote:
to promote Progress of Science and useful Arts,
by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries
The *objective* was to foster innovation, NOT to reward people.
Innovation is
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:56:51 -0400, Tony Harminc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jay Maynard wrote:
to promote Progress of Science and useful Arts,
by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries
The
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 06/21/2006
at 08:23 AM, Charles Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
At the risk of getting flamed, I would like to respectfully disagree
with the apparent majority opinion on this list that all software
patents are bad, that the fact that software can be patented is a bad
, Sam
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:07 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Patent #6886160
How Software Patents Actually Work :-)
http://wiki.ffii.org/SwpatAnim050418En
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 08:23 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
Why does IP protection (patent, copyright, TM, and trade secrets) exist? It
is so that people can be rewarded for their creativity.
No, you are describing a side effect, but not the objective. The U.S.
Constitution establishes
Charles Mills wrote:
At the risk of getting flamed, I would like to respectfully
disagree with the apparent majority opinion on this list that
all software patents are bad, that the fact that software can
be patented is a bad thing. I would like to argue that the
PROCESS and the details,
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tony Harminc
[ snip ]
If a program can be patented, why should discoveries in
mathematics be excluded? But they are.
Bad choice: Discoveries are not inventions. One cannot patent
facts.
Why should a book or
,
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:41 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Patent #6886160
Charles Mills wrote:
At the risk of getting flamed, I would like
Bruce Black wrote:
Just wait for the guy's lawyers to send a cease and
desist letter, then fax the relevant pages of the
tech manual (including publication date), stating that
it is well known published prior art and that their
patent is invalid. 'nuf said.
Actually it is probably not 'nuf.
While catching up with my industry pub reading this week, I found something
very interesting in eWeek.
Columnist Jim Rapoza holds software patents in the same high regard
(*cough*) as most of the denizens here on IBM-MAIN. So I was happy to read
his most recent column at
On Saturday 17 June 2006 19:11, Ron and Jenny Hawkins wrote:
1) Pre-allocate the receiving file as RECFM=U;
2) FTP it;
3) then read it as RECFM=VBS.
Do that pretty often as well.
I'm not sure there would be any perceived data loss.
See my test job below. I'm getting this in the RELOAD
On Friday 16 June 2006 17:53, Ron and Jenny Hawkins wrote:
I move SMF data (RECFM=VBS) to my PC all the time by treating it as
RECFM=U... There is nothing that stops me doing the same thing with
a RECFM=VB file.
Sure, but how do you move the data back to MVS as VB or VBS records?
The issue
Of Gilbert Saint-Flour
Sent: Saturday, 17 June 2006 9:08 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Patent #6886160
On Friday 16 June 2006 17:53, Ron and Jenny Hawkins wrote:
I move SMF data (RECFM=VBS) to my PC all the time by treating it as
RECFM=U... There is nothing that stops me doing
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Schmidt
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:59:38 -0400, Thomas David Rivers wrote:
I was stumbling around today and found this patent:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6886160.html
The abstract reads:
A
On Thursday 15 June 2006 22:20, Ron and Jenny Hawkins wrote:
Sad! It ridiculous. Obviously no-one ever showed this guy the
Utilities manual so he could run IEBCOPY instead of inventing PCFORM.
Bad example: IEBCOPY creates a file with RECFM=VB records which isn't
suited for download to a PC.
That should be patently obvious. chuckle, snort
Jon
snip
Indeed. One must wonder if the term patent has any meaning left at
all
/snip
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
In a message dated 6/16/2006 8:50:18 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That should be patently obvious. chuckle, snort
Getting pretty close to Friday. Some of the morning Finance shows
have been reporting on this. Evidently the pendulum swings slowly in the
Just wait for the guy's lawyers to send a cease and
desist letter, then fax the relevant pages of the
tech manual (including publication date), stating that
it is well known published prior art and that their
patent is invalid. 'nuf said.
Actually it is probably not 'nuf. There is still nothing
On Jun 16, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Ed Finnell wrote:
In a message dated 6/16/2006 8:50:18 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That should be patently obvious. chuckle, snort
Only if you wear pantent leather shoes:)
Ed
-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gilbert Saint-Flour
Sent: Friday, 16 June 2006 9:15 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Patent #6886160
On Thursday 15 June 2006 22:20, Ron and Jenny Hawkins wrote:
Sad! It ridiculous. Obviously no-one
In a recent note [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:14:46 -0400
On Thursday 15 June 2006 22:20, Ron and Jenny Hawkins wrote:
Sad! It ridiculous. Obviously no-one ever showed this guy the
Utilities manual so he could run IEBCOPY instead of inventing PCFORM.
Bad
I was stumbling around today and found this patent:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6886160.html
The abstract reads:
A method of distributing mainframe software and data using PC-based
data media is disclosed, comprising a mainframe program for converting
a mainframe sequential
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:59:38 -0400, Thomas David Rivers wrote:
I was stumbling around today and found this patent:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6886160.html
The abstract reads:
A method of distributing mainframe software and data using PC-based
data media is disclosed, comprising
It's kind of sad, isn't it...
This guy spent who knows how much money on getting this patent, and it
describes (as you say) basic procedures that were in routine use at least
ten years before the application.
Sad because of all that money, but sadder still that the USPTO was so
clueless as to
On Thursday 15 June 2006 17:07, Thomas David Rivers wrote:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6886160.html
A method of distributing mainframe software and data using PC-based
data media is disclosed, comprising a mainframe program for
converting a mainframe sequential dataset or all or
] On Behalf
Of Thomas David Rivers
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Patent #6886160
I was stumbling around today and found this patent:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6886160.html
The abstract reads:
A method of distributing mainframe software
===
-Original Message-
From: Tony Harminc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 6/15/2006 5:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Patent #6886160
It's kind of sad, isn't it...
This guy spent who knows how much money on getting
@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Patent #6886160
snip
This is yet another example of how the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) is broken
- this patent should never have been issued in the first place.
Software patents are a very bad idea anyway
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 06/15/2006
at 04:59 PM, Thomas David Rivers [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I was stumbling around today and found this patent:
Does the disclosures section of the patent mention IEHMOVE? The part
that isn't prior art is obvious to a practitioner, making the whole
thing
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Friday, 16 June 2006 7:05 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Patent #6886160
It's kind of sad, isn't it...
This guy spent who knows how much money on getting this patent, and it
describes (as you say) basic procedures that were in routine use
33 matches
Mail list logo
