|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, March 10 2013 @ 11:21 PM EDT |
Suggest the topic and explain. Wait for the discussion (if ever) to convince
them that they are terribly wrong.
Bringing up a topic with only one acceptable answer sort of obviates the need
for the discussion.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Sunday, March 10 2013 @ 11:35 PM EDT |
The part you have removed is the refutation of the doctrine that programing a
computer makes a machine different from the unprogrammed computer.
This part pulls the carpet from under the main legal theory that makes software
patentable. It may be seem repetitious and abstract from a technical
perspective, but from a legal perspective this is the heart of the issue.
The part you have omitted is not a repetition. It is addressing a very important
legal point.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 09:27 PM EDT |
the current interpretation of patent law is
plagued with what
developers view as erroneous
conceptions
of how computers
work.
How 'bout...
the current
interpretation of patent law is
plagued with erroneous conceptions of how
computers work.
The Truth is independent of the viewer in
such matters.
The views of lawyers or developers is irrelevant. Truth,
when it
is about the Natural World, is immutable, and does
not change to suit the whims
of the viewer. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|