--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Sander Vesik wrote:
>
> >--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Daniel,
> >>
> >>All I was pointing out was that MS didn't even do what you suggested.
> >>You said "since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of
> >>old ones" and that is true.
> >>They did not invent anything, although there patent would lead you to
> >>believe otherwise. *grin*
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >So please englighten us, what about the patent is all that old?
> >
> >
> Well, I looked at "arbitrary annotated source code" as defining any
> data structure(object) and "format of a document having a serial format"
> as governed by this source code. I've been doing that since I learned
> to create records in a database over 20 years ago.
>
Sure, it also uses age-old words like 'and' that have been in use for hundreds
of
years :P
> Maybe I'm over simplifying this claim.
>
you seemto be seeing just soe fragments and not teh whole - recognising
well-known
tree species but not that you have wondered up to a forest you havne't seen
before
;-)
Its not that teh patent is something incredibly novel or innovative or that
parts of
it (or possibly all) probably won't be upheld in court or that there definitely
won't be prior art - its just that it is not (as far as software patents go in
this
regard) somehow entirely bogus or preposterous or would cover all (or even a
fraction of) computer-computer communication as people have been claiming.
> Cheers,
> Alex Janssen
>
>
Sander
.sigless
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
