Randall R Schulz wrote: > Jerry, > > I am going to assume you didn't mean to reply to me directly (since we > don't cotton to that 'round these parts) and quote your reply back to > the list. > > > On Monday 14 May 2007 12:25, Jerry Houston wrote: > >> Randall R Schulz wrote: >> >>> It's not well reasoned, though, is it? First of all, the claim is >>> that patents were infringed upon, not that source code was stolen. >>> Patents describe concepts. Code is a reduction to practice. Bugs >>> are introduced in the reduction to practice, while they're not an >>> aspect of the essential concept. >>> >> Patents are _supposed_ to be based on *processes*. >> > > There are process patents. There are device patents. > > And now there are software patents. Like it or not, and I most certainly > do not, it's currently the law here (the U.S.) and elsewhere, and until > that's changed, we're stuck in the morasse they create. >
And MS claims are of course patent nonsense. ;-) -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
