If applied with good sense, I think the patents even are a necessity. Otherwise we'll end up stealing and selling each other idea's all the time. That would be a funny sight... :-)
However, patenting the execution of bytecode ... has somebody already patenting a device to push buttons to enter data into a computer ? On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 17:39, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]>wrote: > How hard is it to understand patent law, folks? > > What you're suggesting won't change anything. Not one iota. You can re- > invent everything as far as I care. It's patent law. What you're > suggesting would help avoid any lawsuits that revolve around trademark > law. The lawsuit oracle opened against google did not invoke any part > of trademark law. > > On Sep 12, 5:41 am, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected]> > wrote: > > So what happens if one rewrites all references in some application > replacing > > java and javax. to somethingelse and somethingelse respectively at > compile > > time. Naturally harmony itself which is a part of the deployment platform > > will have also had its packages similar "fixed". Does this make a > difference > > in the above argument ? > > > > PS. lets pretend all strings with java etc in them used by reflection are > > also fixed. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
