Richard Braakman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 08:50:11PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
You can also reason, if a program can cause a general purpose
processor to do the same thing as a dedicated hardware board
can do, and that board does something patentable, then the
program
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 10:01:39PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
Ugh. And here I thought the whole point of a patent was to cover
a novel method of achieving something, not to grant a monopoly on
the thing to be achieved.
How naïve you are.
Welcome to the new capitalism.
Monopolies good.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
Software Patent is legal in some countries (like US and Japan) and
is illegal in Europe (in the article 52 of the Munich Convention). If you
care about Software Patents, you should take this point into
Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
In other words, even though you think that 52(2) and (3) can only
be explained one way, do not be surprised if national courts decide
otherwise. IIRC the UK courts routinely accept software-related
patents,
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 08:50:11PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
You can also reason, if a program can cause a general purpose
processor to do the same thing as a dedicated hardware board
can do, and that board does something patentable, then the
program must also be patentable.
On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 11:17, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
Software Patent is legal in some countries (like US and Japan) and
is illegal in Europe (in the article 52 of the Munich Convention). If you
care
6 matches
Mail list logo
