Re: Derivative effects.
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:46:24 -0800,
Day Brown <daybrown@hypertech.net> wrote in message
<[🔎] 4014E1F0.6C2D69A4@hypertech.net>:
> Al Davis wrote:
>
> > At the time, I believed like the majority, that Henderson was just
> > jealous of his competition, because he couldn't keep up. In
> > hindsight, now I see it Henderson's way.
> >
> > How is this case different from GPL violations today?
> >
> > http://www.esva.net/~thom/philkatz.html
> > http://www.was-ist-fido.de/doks/fnews/fido540.txt
> Whatever history decides what the details were, the future looks like
> we are going to return to the Greek tradition, which was to view ideas
> as the gifts of the Muses. Therefore not patentable.
..I take it you guys here discuss the US "Software Patents" and not real
life patent such as say, Orville and Wilbur Wright wing twist patent?
..patent was conceived as a legal instrument to promote industry and
the advance of technology, by allowing the innovator a 20 year monopoly
to exploit his idea commercially, _provided_ the idea is new, provides a
technical and tangible effect that is reproducible, and can be exercized
by anyone with average knowledge of the state of art in the relevant
field of technology.
..it is right there, that the US has failed.
> The complexity of software is such now that the judges and juries who
> decide case law cannot possibly understand what they are doing, and-
> as the PKzip case suggests, we'll find ways around the court decisions
> to make them trivial.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Reply to: