On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 01:21:08AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> It brings up another sore point with me. I'm of the opinion that both
> copyright, and patent, should be granted to the author/inventor on a
> non-transferable basis. He could then sell rights to use it for a
> set period of
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 13:11 -0700, Trever L. Adams wrote:
[...]
> It is Article 1 Section 8. It also says they shall have that power and
> that the intent is to promote the advances of arts and sciences. It
Actually the current (ab)use of the patent system (both in the USA and
by the EPO under
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 13:11 -0700, Trever L. Adams wrote:
[...]
It is Article 1 Section 8. It also says they shall have that power and
that the intent is to promote the advances of arts and sciences. It
Actually the current (ab)use of the patent system (both in the USA and
by the EPO under
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 01:21:08AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
It brings up another sore point with me. I'm of the opinion that both
copyright, and patent, should be granted to the author/inventor on a
non-transferable basis. He could then sell rights to use it for a
set period of time, at
Trever L. Adams wrote:
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 08:48 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
Constitution, and patents
are not going away.
Merkey aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? Unless you do some funky
concatenation of articles
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 08:48 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
> Constitution, and patents
> are not going away.
Merkey aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? Unless you do some funky
concatenation of articles and sections you can't
James Simmons wrote:
Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
Constitution, and patents
are not going away. Live with guys. The best way to win the patent
wars is for people
who do Linux development to file their own patents and put some stakes
in the ground.
I
> Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
> Constitution, and patents
> are not going away. Live with guys. The best way to win the patent
> wars is for people
> who do Linux development to file their own patents and put some stakes
> in the ground.
I have to
You guys keep saying, "stop the patents" but this is insanity. It's
like all these big companies
used patents like swords and are hemming linux in, and Linux stands
naked and defenseless.
You guys need to get your own swords and fight -- start filing
patents -- go to this new law
center
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 21:28 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Another Linux patent.
... and another - AFAICS obvious - trivial ("prior art") patent (but
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 21:28 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Another Linux patent.
... and another - AFAICS obvious - trivial ("prior art") patent (but I'm
not fluent in
Why the hell would I want
to look at the link in kwrite?
Talk to the USPTO, they created these links from their website. BTW,
if you check
the verson of web server run on the uspto.gov server, you will
discover it is
Apache on IBM servers and IBM Linux. Ask them why IBM's sofware
outputs
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 11:31:36AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 01:21 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> [...]
> > It brings up another sore point with me. I'm of the opinion that both
> > copyright, and patent, should be granted to the author/inventor on a
> >
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 01:21 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
[...]
> It brings up another sore point with me. I'm of the opinion that both
> copyright, and patent, should be granted to the author/inventor on a
> non-transferable basis. He could then sell rights to use it for a
ACK. This would kill
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 21:28 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> >On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >>Another Linux patent.
... and another - AFAICS obvious - trivial ("prior art") patent (but I'm
not fluent in patent quak, I'm just a simple systems
Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Why the hell would I want to look at the link in kwrite?
>>
>>Talk to the USPTO, they created these links from their website. BTW,
>>if you check the verson of web server run on the uspto.gov server,
>>you will discover it is Apache on IBM servers and
Gene Heskett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why the hell would I want to look at the link in kwrite?
Talk to the USPTO, they created these links from their website. BTW,
if you check the verson of web server run on the uspto.gov server,
you will discover it is Apache on IBM servers and IBM Linux.
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 21:28 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Another Linux patent.
... and another - AFAICS obvious - trivial (prior art) patent (but I'm
not fluent in patent quak, I'm just a simple systems engineer).
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 01:21 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
[...]
It brings up another sore point with me. I'm of the opinion that both
copyright, and patent, should be granted to the author/inventor on a
non-transferable basis. He could then sell rights to use it for a
ACK. This would kill
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 11:31:36AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 01:21 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
[...]
It brings up another sore point with me. I'm of the opinion that both
copyright, and patent, should be granted to the author/inventor on a
non-transferable
Why the hell would I want
to look at the link in kwrite?
Talk to the USPTO, they created these links from their website. BTW,
if you check
the verson of web server run on the uspto.gov server, you will
discover it is
Apache on IBM servers and IBM Linux. Ask them why IBM's sofware
outputs
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 21:28 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Another Linux patent.
... and another - AFAICS obvious - trivial (prior art) patent (but I'm
not fluent in
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 21:28 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Another Linux patent.
... and another - AFAICS obvious - trivial (prior art) patent (but I'm
You guys keep saying, stop the patents but this is insanity. It's
like all these big companies
used patents like swords and are hemming linux in, and Linux stands
naked and defenseless.
You guys need to get your own swords and fight -- start filing
patents -- go to this new law
center
Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
Constitution, and patents
are not going away. Live with guys. The best way to win the patent
wars is for people
who do Linux development to file their own patents and put some stakes
in the ground.
I have to agree
James Simmons wrote:
Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
Constitution, and patents
are not going away. Live with guys. The best way to win the patent
wars is for people
who do Linux development to file their own patents and put some stakes
in the ground.
I
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 08:48 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
Constitution, and patents
are not going away.
Merkey aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? Unless you do some funky
concatenation of articles and sections you can't find
Trever L. Adams wrote:
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 08:48 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Patent law in the US is based on section 113 of the United States
Constitution, and patents
are not going away.
Merkey aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? Unless you do some funky
concatenation of articles
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 23:28, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>>On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>>>Another Linux patent.
>>
>>And that pretty much says it. Assigned to the Canopy Group. So
>> SCO will have yet another lawsuit to threaten us with. If
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Another Linux patent.
And that pretty much says it. Assigned to the Canopy Group. So SCO
will have yet another lawsuit to threaten us with. If they survive
the thrashing I've Been Moved will give them at
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>Another Linux patent.
And that pretty much says it. Assigned to the Canopy Group. So SCO
will have yet another lawsuit to threaten us with. If they survive
the thrashing I've Been Moved will give them at the end of the day.
Too
Another Linux patent.
--- Begin Message ---
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2=HITOFF=1=/netahtml/search-bool.html=1=G=50=AND=ptxt=merkey.INZZ.=IN/merkey=IN/merkey
Another Linux patent.
---BeginMessage---
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=/netahtml/search-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=ptxts1=merkey.INZZ.OS=IN/merkeyRS=IN/merkey
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Another Linux patent.
And that pretty much says it. Assigned to the Canopy Group. So SCO
will have yet another lawsuit to threaten us with. If they survive
the thrashing I've Been Moved will give them at the end of the day.
Too bad
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Another Linux patent.
And that pretty much says it. Assigned to the Canopy Group. So SCO
will have yet another lawsuit to threaten us with. If they survive
the thrashing I've Been Moved will give them at
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 23:28, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:36, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Another Linux patent.
And that pretty much says it. Assigned to the Canopy Group. So
SCO will have yet another lawsuit to threaten us with. If they
survive
36 matches
Mail list logo
