On Wednesday 22 June 2005 03.25, Florent Bayle wrote: [libpano12] > http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/patents.html suggests that there > is clear prior art in this case. I have taken this link from previous > discution on debian-legal. But Robert Jordens thinks that : > "The prior art argument is pretty much irrelevant in our question as long > as the legal status quo is different and the patent has not been > challanged." Wouldn't this be a case where pubpat could be asked to review the patent and try to challenge it? Debian is, after all, quite well-known, and if this patent really - has prior art and thus should be available, and - is enforced aggressively enough that some developers have been scared away, I think pubpat might be interested. (The two items above were hinted at in this discussion - I'm not familiar with the case, just jumping in.) cheers -- vbi -- Compatible: Gracefully accepts erroneous data from any source.
Attachment:
pgpBkA_gIpHzH.pgp
Description: PGP signature