I brought it up. I guess I should have been more clear, but I
did it specifically for the authors of embedded perl/tag
packages such as Embperl, ASP, Mason and HTML::Template.
I intended for the authors of the packages to get "up in arms" and
send the patent office documentation on prior art so they could
nip this patent process in the bud. Once it becomes patented, it
is much more expensive to fight than before a patent is issued.
If Embperl gets taken out of circulation because of patent infringement,
I have a lot of work to do in order to replace it.
cliff rayman
genwax.com
"Jeffrey W. Baker" wrote:
> Vivek Khera wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> "JB" == Jason Bodnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > JB> Actually, prior art prohibits something from being patented. If
> > JB> somebody can demonstrate that the pantented concept is not new
due
> > JB> to prior art then the patent office will not issue the patent.
> >
> > So, to all of you, what does this have to do with mod_perl? This
> > certainly is not a patent-reform mailing list. Please take this
> > discussion somewhere more appropriate. Thanks.
>
> Oh be serious. A patent on a programming language embedded in a
markup
> langauge would have a serious effect on the mod_perl community. There
> are several such languages which work with mod_perl, and at least two
of
> them are supported directly on this list.
>
> -jwb
