And at this point, I think it'd be a waste of effort.
But we do need
to simplify our examples and make them clear to the people that need to
understand them:
Congress
Supremes
What I mean by
clarity:
It doesn't help when one of us tries to use a single example and we
get a dozen others - of us - who are breaking away from the simple message
provided just to nit the details.
It only adds to the confusion which is
the only tool of the pro-software patent group have. It's also their strongest
tool.
Example: they point to a printout. You use Congress/Judges as your
audience and you point out the reality that there's nothing there but ink on
paper. Any meaning is in the fact that software is a language and if you can
patent that printout, you can patent anything anyone can author from short
stories to facts and math.
Getting into a discussion with individuals
such as Gene Quinn who insist math is patentable and will point at the patents
that have been granted as proof while you point to the Supremes explicitly
stating "math is not patentable" is a complete waste of time and
effort.
You can't succeed against someone whose vested interest is
embedded in the illusion. And given it's not the Patent Lawyers that ultimately
make/enforce the Law - they're not who we should be explaining things
to.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
