Qui, 2006-12-28 às 15:52 +0100, Merijn de Weerd escreveu: > On 2006-12-28, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Qui, 2006-12-28 =C3=A0s 12:13 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra escreveu: > >> criteria. Nevertheless, the software component can't be patented, as > >> declared in most countries patent law (only a few, like the US, are in > >> violation of TRIPS, at least according to my interpretation which sees > >> software delegated to Berne Convention, and Berne Convention delegates > >> it do Droit d'Auteur/Copyright). > > > > As it seems some people still have doubts about the quite clear text: > > There's quite clear text in TRIPS? > > > It doesn't say "shall be protected as you please". > > Nor does it say "shall ONLY be protected". Why do you think > it does?
Because the meaning of "shall" implies the *ONLY*. Of course lawyers exploited the lack of an explicit *ONLY* just as they have been exploiting the usage of "as such" in the EPC. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente
_______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
