IANAL, but I understand that technologies that were in the public domain can
not be patented. And if a patent is issued, it's not enforcable in that
case. Again, IANAL, but I feel that FreeType falls in that same category
(see http://www.freetype.org).
Randy
On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at
docs for the embedded language
http://shop1.virtualsellers.com/4xdoc
I had not included the original article because it came from individual.com
and you have to have an account to access it. I was able to dig up the
original
source. I am not sure how long this link will be valid for:
Actually, prior art prohibits something from being patented. If somebody can
demonstrate that the pantented concept is not new due to prior art then the
patent office will not issue the patent.
On 10-Jan-00 Randy Harmon wrote:
IANAL, but I understand that technologies that were in the public
"JB" == Jason Bodnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JB Actually, prior art prohibits something from being patented. If
JB somebody can demonstrate that the pantented concept is not new due
JB to prior art then the patent office will not issue the patent.
So, to all of you, what does this have to do
I think I missed the initial email but I was guessing it was sent due to the
fact that there are several embedded scripting languages that use mod_perl. If
that's why it was sent then it's very appropriate.
Perhaps you should relax. I think a grand total of 4 or 5 emails have been sent
on this
Vivek Khera wrote:
"JB" == Jason Bodnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JB Actually, prior art prohibits something from being patented. If
JB somebody can demonstrate that the pantented concept is not new due
JB to prior art then the patent office will not issue the patent.
So, to all of
I brought it up. I guess I should have been more clear, but I
did it specifically for the authors of embedded perl/tag
packages such as Embperl, ASP, Mason and HTML::Template.
I intended for the authors of the packages to get "up in arms" and
send the patent office documentation on prior art so
Hi there,
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Cliff Rayman wrote:
soapbox
These patents scare me since the patent granters seem not to understand
software very well - and it seems like it is diametrically opposed
to what the open software movement stands for.
/soapbox
Then come to the United Kingdom,
I brought it up. I guess I should have been more clear, but I
did it specifically for the authors of embedded perl/tag
packages such as Embperl, ASP, Mason and HTML::Template.
I am not sure if they want to pantent embbedding a programming language in
HTML, or just their language (They later
I forgot about Micro$oft and ASP, they could squash a patent
like a bug.
I tried to look up the patent but the database is only current
through Jan 4th. I will check it out and report back when
the actual patent is available.
cliff rayman
genwax.com
Gerald Richter wrote:
> I brought it up. I
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
Vivek Khera wrote:
"JB" == Jason Bodnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JB Actually, prior art prohibits something from being patented. If
JB somebody can demonstrate that the pantented concept is not new due
JB to prior art then the patent
11 matches
Mail list logo
