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> Based on an inapplicable general definition of "component", the United States argues that "the software copy that is actually loaded onto computer is a part, element, or ingredient of the patented invention." U.S. Brief, at 8. However, that too is overbroad and reflects inexact terminology. If the "patented invention" in question is a claimed product of system, the specific copy of the software that is loaded on the computer may be a "component" of the patented invention. However, for the reasons stated, if the "patented invention" at issue is a process or method, the software even as loaded on a computer structure is still not part of the patented process, but merely a material or apparatus for use in practicing the process and hence not a "component" at all. ... If software can be a "component" but only when it is represented in tangible form, then such component cannot be divorced from the particular physical media on which it is embodied. In that case, the only components "supplied" by Microsoft in or from the United States are its golden master disks which are never combined with anything outside the United States in a manner that would infringed Respondent's asserted product or system claims. </quote> U.S. Brief: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/MSFT.DOJ.pdf regards, alexander. -- "Boycott Exxon-Mobil" -- www.stallman.org _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
