|
Authored by: BitOBear on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 05:51 AM EDT |
You're defining a -Java- package. That is, you are defining the on-disk (as
opposed to in-a-jar-file) representation of a package for the Java runtime
system.
I am defining (or trying to define) a package at the conceptual level in a
language independent fashion so that the final confluence of computer science
term of art and legal precedent will make sense, not just for java but for
"computers".
The danger here is that the court might make the same mistake you are making and
presume the deliberate confluence and simple representation provided for java is
a universal concept within computer science.
Look instead at the Ada LRM or the TCL package file definitions for some of the
further outlying material datapoints that decouple "how it sits in
storage" (etc) from how it is bound into the concept of art in computer
science.
Being too material is dangerous here.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|