Re: SFLC: a penumbra

2006-12-20 Thread Alexander Terekhov
[http://www.softwarefreedom.org/publications/msvatt.pdf] Toward the end, arch legal GNU beagle Eben eloquently states: Thus, this Court's precedent repeatedly sets out that software, which is nothing more than a set of instructions -- an algorithm -- to be performed by a computer in order to

Re: SFLC: a penumbra

2006-12-20 Thread rjack
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/publications/msvatt.pdf] Toward the end, arch legal GNU beagle Eben eloquently states: Thus, this Court's precedent repeatedly sets out that software, which is nothing more than a set of instructions -- an algorithm -- to be performed

Re: SFLC: a penumbra

2006-12-19 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Vandenberg.pdf http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Shell.pdf Simply put, software is not a process ... but merely represents a processs, says Shell. What Shell wants is this: quote

Re: SFLC: a penumbra

2006-12-19 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Vandenberg.pdf http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Shell.pdf Simply put, software is not a process ... but merely represents a processs, says Shell. regards, alexander. -- Boycott Exxon-Mobil -- www.stallman.org

Re: SFLC: a penumbra

2006-12-19 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Vandenberg.pdf http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Shell.pdf Simply put, software is not a process ... but merely represents a processs, says Shell.

Re: SFLC: a penumbra

2006-12-19 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Vandenberg.pdf http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.Shell.pdf Simply put, software is not a process ... but merely represents a processs, says Shell. What Shell wants is this:

Re: SFLC: a penumbra

2006-12-18 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Alexander Terekhov wrote: rjack wrote: [...] One must be careful to define Component[] in context. http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2006/2pet/6invit/2005-1056.pet.ami.inv.html Although the court of appeals correctly held that software can be a component of a patented invention, it

Re: SFLC: a penumbra

2006-12-18 Thread rjack
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: rjack wrote: [...] One must be careful to define Component[] in context. http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2006/2pet/6invit/2005-1056.pet.ami.inv.html Although the court of appeals correctly held that software can be a component of a

Re: SFLC: a penumbra

2006-12-18 Thread Alexander Terekhov
rjack wrote: [...] Its information content is transferred from disc to disc without a single molecule being transferred—just as the information in this Brief is transferred to a photocopy without a single molecule being transferred. RMS Sorry if it was not clear, but that Chinese

Re: SFLC: a penumbra

2006-12-18 Thread rjack
Alexander Terekhov wrote: rjack wrote: [...] Its information content is transferred from disc to disc without a single molecule being transferred—just as the information in this Brief is transferred to a photocopy without a single molecule being transferred. RMS Sorry if it was not

Re: SFLC: a penumbra

2006-12-18 Thread Alexander Terekhov
I find it rather interesing that this recent instance of a penumbra blah-blah filed by the SFLC is basically copy and paste from Eben's SFLC underling Dan of PubPat brief in LabCorp v. Metabolite. http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/AmicusBriefs/PUBPAT_LabCorp_SCt_Brief.pdf The Supreme Court

Re: SFLC: a penumbra

2006-12-18 Thread rjack
Alexander Terekhov wrote: I find it rather interesing that this recent instance of a penumbra blah-blah filed by the SFLC is basically copy and paste from Eben's SFLC underling Dan of PubPat brief in LabCorp v. Metabolite.